S2N

That doesn’t answer what date she was DQ’d. My back of the napkin math is that you’re within normal processing times, but we don’t know enough right now to compare to norms.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/iv-wait-times.html You can check what DQ months they are scheduling currently at the URL above. Lima is April 2025, so like Appleblossom said, expect 6ish months.

Could you fill out your timeline, including country? Usually getting passed over during the normal processing times is either because it’s a complicated case or it’s from a more “complex” country where it’s more difficult to run even the basic checks on the beneficiary that USCIS handles. African countries tend to lag behind 3-5 months from anecdotal reports I’ve seen, as an example. An example of a complexity outside of the country would be a case with multiple divorces to foreign spouses, the petitioner having certain criminal convictions, or pretty much anything that could be considered a departure from the mean.

If you’ve been conditionally approved see if they offer GE interview on arrival at the airport you’re flying into. That way you kill two birds with one stone. GE is awesome. Beats even the European eGates on efficiency once you have the interview Edit to add link to enrollment on arrival: Enrollment on Arrival

From memory it only populates if you say “yes” to the initial question about if they’re in the U.S. currently on the radio button or drop down (I could be wrong though, I can’t go back and check ours.) I’d double check to make sure there’s not an initial question that was answered incorrectly. Or I could be wrong, but worth double checking.

1) Passport; you provide travel document if she doesn’t have a passport 2) If she’s not physically in the U.S. when the I-130 is filed this isn’t applicable

Freetown is currently scheduling interviews for visa applicants that were DQ’d in January 2024. If your PD is November 2024, your DQ date couldn’t be much earlier than January or February 2024. What was the date you were DQ’d? If it’s January 2024 or later, you’re within normal processing times.

So much of this is pre-screening. They already know who they want to talk to. Most airlines begin sharing passport data with CBP to verify ESTA status 72 hours before. If there’s a big issue that prevents VWP eligibility, they will cancel it in this time period. From the example I know: Chile recently started sharing more data with CBP so CBP is currently in the process of cancelling improperly granted ESTAs. They do it at the airport before the plane takes off and you aren’t permitted boarding even if you’ve already checked in. Once the plane is in the air the airline sends the final passenger list to CBP. During that time CBP reviews the results of automated checks requiring human intervention, and check for individuals with permission to get on the plane who might not be admissible but who didn’t flag with conclusive proof in the ESTA checks or who have a visa so don’t go through those checks. They also tend to have a pretty strong focus on the customs portion: there was a story the published recently about catching someone trying to smuggle in $183k of luxury French goods who didn’t realize the French shared the VAT reimbursement receipts with CBP. By the time you’re at the airport they have a list of the people they want to talk to and the conversation they have with you is doing surface level risk assessment to see if you admit to a red flag the screening missed because you weren’t on any list. If you use one of the automated or semi-automated entries (GE or MPC) that minimizes questions as a lot of the data is already loaded into the system without human interaction so there’s less time to ask questions while typing. If you have an ESTA and are allowed to enter the plane there’s a low risk of being denied entry. If you successfully use MPC, it’s lowered, and GE makes that even lower since they’ve already done extensive vetting before. None of that guarantees anything, the person I mentioned above with $183k of undeclared goods was caught by the GE program. But if you aren’t breaking any laws it really is unlikely you will be flagged by any of the pre-entry systems, which means it’s likely you will be admitted.

Expanding more on my comment: the advice I was given here was that since we were planning on going back to Chile within days of the wedding, to wait until we’d left so not to confuse USCIS why someone inside the U.S. wanted an interview in Santiago. You can check CBP’s I-94 website by looking at the travel history (Search->See travel history) and it will tell you if they’ve processed a departure: I-94 website Reason I suggest waiting until that is updated is that if you file online they do some automated checks and you don’t want to flag anything if CBP’s records at the time show her in the US and you filed the form saying she wasn’t. Website can take 12-48 hours to update. Plenty of time for you to draft the petition and then click submit once it shows her leaving the country.

We filed the second CBP had updated the I-94 website to show he had left the country.

Since you’ve been here before use MPC and it’ll minimize your chances of questions (not as much as global entry, but still they ask less.) My husband just landed in the U.S. from Chile this AM on an ESTA and they only asked him why he was hear and how long he was staying, no request for documents etc. even in the normal line. CBP really is trying to automate things as much as possible for VWP countries to minimize judgement calls by frontline officers (cuts both ways…) if you’re a VWP national, don’t have anything flagging in their automated checks after the API is submitted, and don’t proactively volunteer anything stupid (you are not required to tell them you aren’t getting a job unless they ask, for example), you should be fine. My husband is from the highest denied entry VWP program country and they’ve not once mentioned the I-130 we have pending to him. VWP and no criminal record or vacations to unfriendly countries counts for a lot.

Because it’s the universal experience with the USCIS Random Number Generator (dba MyProgress) USCIS is remarkably consistent in the timing of straightforward cases filed around the same time. If you have no issues, you will be approved around the same time most people from the week you filed were. Currently the average wait time is 14.5 months. It’s been as high as 17, but is on a downward trend. I filed in January at the height of the consular I-130 delays and my estimated time has been at 19 months since day 1 and hasn’t moved. USCIS hasn’t taken that long (on average) in recent memory and there’s nothing complex in my case. My petition for my spouse is likely to be approved early next year.

My progress is a random number generator that has nothing to do with your case progress. It can be safely be ignored and you can keep uploading unsolicited evidence to help strengthen your case.

Husband just entered the US via Miami. Tried to use MPC, but it was down at MIA this AM apparently. Asked him reason for the trip (“to go to a wedding”, we’re going to one this weekend) and how long he was staying and sent him on his merry way with no fuss. No questions at all about the pending I-130.

Actual trends are on average 14.5 months right now. I think we’ve started saying 13-17 to account for speediness and slowness. It was trending towards being in the 11 month range that was seen 3 years ago, but March 2024 threw a wrench in it because that was the last month before increased fees so we don’t know realistically how long it’s taking them to process consular cases. April will throw another wrench in it because that’s when they started giving the $50 online filing discount. Most of the I-130 data posted online tracks paper I-130s. Those were already more heavily waited towards AOS cases, but with the discount the main reason to file paper now is if you want to concurrently file all the same forms. Meaning we’re probably going to be flying blind as to approval trends except for anecdotes for the next few months.

Not who you asked, but my husband wasn’t asked anything about the pending I-130 when he entered at the end of April. They asked why he was here (“vacation”) and if he was staying with family (“yes”) and nothing else in the MPC line. Highly recommend it if they’re returning MPC nationals. In his case it also probably helps that it’s very obvious he doesn’t speak English so they tend to give him the answers he just has to agree with them if they’re true.

Reading through all the posts, the only one that I see where there were issues other than an employee not following policy, was an adult applying for federal employment where they need something that triggers in SAVES, and in that case the government was fine if they applied for an N-600. USCIS wouldn’t have the authority to overrule a valid passport in this case per their AAO. That is a definitely a valid reason, and parents should be aware of it. Personally, I’d let the child pay for it as an adult in college. I don’t see any real benefit to it, even as someone working in the federal space. I know you never said it was required for proof of citizenship, but it was claimed if it expired someone would be left without proof and that the CoC would be needed. That’s not true. Needing it for a SAVES trigger when completing SF-85/85P/86 is a reason that might appeal to some people, but by the time a child with derivative citizenship today applies for a federal job it’ll probably be a different system and might not be required then. To me, a social security clerk not doing their job in 60 years and the potential that in 30 years my kid might need to pay for one as a condition of federal employment aren’t reasons for me to pay $1385 now. They might be for some people. We just need to be realistic about what the benefits and costs are.

Was going to edit, but found the DCSA doc here: link Looks like the old A number was how they were able to do it for my naturalized coworkers as that would have triggered SAVES. CoC would probably be needed for this. For US born do it through SSA, which is where I was getting tripped up. Happy to admit I’m wrong on this point. That’s something for parents to consider if it’s worth the costs. I’d personally wait to see if the child wanted to go into federal service in college before paying.

Yes, there are some federal jobs that might, but having gone through the federal employment process many times, they normally just confirm with SSA. Work with many naturalized citizen coworkers who have a TS or TS/SCI; none of them have ever been requested to provide physical proof of citizenship, though they have been asked for passports to verify travel history. We’re talking edge cases here, and edge cases aren’t a good reason to suggest someone needs to pay $1385 when they can pay $135 and largely have the same benefits except maybe some federal jobs after they become adults.

That’s not true, though. The Department of State issuing a passport is definitive proof of US citizenship even in derivative citizenship cases, and claiming otherwise is factually incorrect. You can renew a passport with an expired passport within the last five years, and if you have derivative and let it lapse for more than five years, you can request DoS search its files to show proof of having issued a passport and you can then apply to renew it with their record search as proof of citizenship. Same if it’s lost. travel.state.gov makes it clear. All of which is cheaper and quicker than an N-600. I get that people might want an N-600 because it makes them feel safer, but there’s not been one example given of an actual use case where the claimed federal government benefit lists a CoC in preference to a passport. If people want to get one that’s completely fine, but they should know what the facts are and what the government itself claims. —SSA: their website lists passport above CoC when changing status —Passport: initial one can be obtained without a CoC, be renewed within 5 years of expiration with an expired passport, and if lost or outdated can conduct a search of passport records and reissue —Employment: I-9 lists passport; most federal jobs do not require physical proof of citizenship and just confirm via SSA these days (you file OF-306 and they do it that way) — State ID: states accept passports as proof of U.S. citizenship for Real ID purposes Voting: not sure which states require this and not a passport, but if that’s the case it’d be rare. I’m more than happy to admit I’m wrong if someone can provide an example of a specific federal government benefit that lists a CoC as being accepted as proof of citizenship but passports not being accepted. Not anecdotal experiences of individual employees not knowing what’s on the government’s own website. If we’re going to be telling people that it is highly suggested to pay over $1000 we need facts of where the government prefers it. So far I can’t find a single example of the government ever claiming that other than vague language on a USCIS FAQ that is easily refuted by looking up the benefits,

Just to use SSA as an example, they list a passport on the list of things they accept for proof of change in citizenship status higher than a CoC: link Passport is also accepted as definitive proof for form I-9, Real ID, and basically every government benefit I have ever encountered someone needing, and while the law review article cites the FAQ, it doesn’t provide the full context of the FAQ saying it’s optional if you have a passport, and then listing examples of where it might be needed. In those examples, the relevant government webpages all state they accept passports as proof within the U.S. the FAQ is also inconsistent with the AAO ruling I linked to earlier. Newish to the sponsoring a spouse world, but been involved with immigration world for a long time, and I don’t know anyone who has ever been asked to show a naturalization certificate or citizenship certificate if they have a passport. It’s conclusive evidence of citizenship per both BIA and USCIS AAO. Many people want one to be safe, and that’s their choice, but it’s factually wrong to state that a passport issued by DoS is not conclusive proof of citizenship. Whether the costs are worth the benefits a personal choice, not a legal necessity. Anyway, someone should split this thread. Edit: saw @Dashinka’s linked post after this. The states where it’s needed to register to vote or one of the federal jobs where it’s needed make sense; though most federal jobs confirm citizenship via SSA these days. Both of those are fairly rare use cases, though.

Probably worth splitting this to another thread, but just scanning the article it seems to assuming that DHS SAVE is an accurate database. From personal experience with my mother, it’s not, and her US passport was the only record of her naturalization after losing her naturalization certificate as USCIS had no data stored on it within the databases and had to do a manual record search. I’m personally biased in favor of trusting State more to get it right than USCIS, since I’ve had nothing but positive interactions with them. Meanwhile USCIS lost my mother’s naturalization records. I’d personally feel much safer if my kids only had a passport than only had a CoC because I have more faith in DoS to keep their records up to date.

Thats an example of an initial passport issuance after parent naturalization. Once a passport is issued that is evidence of citizenship and the record of its issuance in a file search would be sufficient. You’d need the same evidence for a CoC after parent naturalization as the standard is the same unless you previously got a passport, in which case the passport would be proof. If you got a CoC first the CoC would be proof for the passport. They’re legally equivalent. Is there any evidence of State not accepting its own free file search records as proof of citizenship after initial issuance? That’s the question here.

I just linked to the USCIS administrative ruling stating the opposite, which also references the legally controlling BIA ruling. Anecdotal evidence is great; and many people file N-600 because they don’t understand the law and want to be safe, but as a matter of law a passport or record of a passport having been issued is legally equivalent to a citizenship certificate, and this is recognized by DOJ, DHS, and DoS. Edit: Here is where State discusses how to get a passport if you’ve lost one and have no other proof: file search at the bottom

Incorrect. This was actually the case I was thinking of. The Secretary of State has authority to make definitive judgments on citizenship status. One of the ways he he exercises that authority by issuing passports (all passports are issued under his authority.) Based on BIA precedent, the issuance of a passport is conclusive proof of citizenship. USCIS does not have independent authority to make a contrary determination if the Secretary of State has ever issued a passport, even per there own internal ruling, and they must follow the State Department on this. Individuals might want a citizenship certificate in case they lose a passport, but it’s costly, takes time, and ultimately it’d be cheaper and quicker to get a replacement passport after losing one since the State Department will conduct a free search of passport records issued after 1994 and considers that sufficient proof of citizenship to reissue. Before 1994 it costs $150, which is still cheaper than a citizenship certificate.