S2N

I’d find a joint sponsor.

In theory even the paper petitions now are digitized and they get routed to an ISO’s computer when it’s their turn. A few line ISOs have done AMAs about it or posted comments. Even for trainings I’d assume most of them would be semi-automated by PD. My overall theory for most of any type of form that gets approved significantly faster than normal is that there’s a mistake or some other flag/error that requires manual intervention in the computer. For a lot of systems to fix data entry errors, database artifacts, etc. you’d actually need to look at the underlying support. At that point if an ISOs already reviewed it, they might as well adjudicate. I know in my work there’s a software that doesn’t work if there’s an extra comma somewhere in the CSV file. If my staff need my assistance figuring out how to fix it, I usually just go ahead and review the entire output when fixed without waiting for them to do it. In short, my theory is the super quick forms are probably supervisory staff fixing data entry errors or the like that fail automated validations.

I generally agree with your point of view on it, but I think there’s enough early approvals coming out of TSC to say it might be useful if your I-130 is already sitting there. Doesn’t hurt and anecdotal evidence it could be helpful along with a rational explanation as to why that SC would let people “skip ahead.” Another Reddit case where you got a 4 month approval from TSC. Another 6 month K-3 from TSC. Didn’t feel like digging for more but there’s enough anecdotal evidence for me to feel comfortable calling it a trend. For all the others I agree with you that it’s not worth the time filling it out. Even if it’s free.

Yeah, if you look at the crazy fast approvals on Reddit or Discord these days they’re virtually all originally at TSC. Similar to the theory of a rogue adjudicator, I think there’s probably a supervisor somewhere trying to pad the numbers and directing I-130s to ISOs when an I-129F comes in. ISOs don’t have any say on what cases go into their queue, so it’d have to be a supervisor routing it. Someone with performance metrics tied to closing cases would have a motivation to speed something up if it’s a 2-for-1, which would explain why you see a lot of Texas ones. Of course, that’s all speculation but everything regarding K-3 is speculation and I think it’s a decent explanation for I-130s in TSC taking 3-6 months to get approved with K-3.

This is a Texas I-130. It’s the only service center I’ve seen where there’s a trend of approving I-130s faster than average if you file for a K-3 as well. They’re the ones who process the I-129Fs for K-3. I’ve said this before, but I can totally see local leadership having an unofficial policy of processing easy I-130s already assigned to them if a K-3 is applied for since it’d let them get rid of two petitions and bump their numbers. I’ve yet to see any evidence the K-3 works for I-130s initially assigned elsewhere.

In theory an I-130 is forever as all it does is establish a non-discretionary right for an USC or LPR to sign an I-864 if they meet a clear legal standard. At the same time, the discretion of the consulate is virtually absolute and with extremely limited options of appeal (and even then it’s not really an appeal, but more of asking the local visa unit nicely to call Washington.) If they want a new I-130, you probably could fight it. But it’d also probably be quicker to just file a new one than fight it.

My understanding is they’d have to reapply for the I-130. It’d be another 15 months at least until a new visa could be issued. The ideal in these circumstances is to stall at NVC. That wasn’t done so here we are. In my opinion the least bad of all the options is to fly to the U.S., get the IR-1 endorsed/activate the green card, fly back to Australia to tie up loose ends, then fly back to the U.S. in 3-4 months. The other option is to apply for the REP and stay in the U.S. until biometrics are done, which can take a few weeks/months. None of the options are really what OP wants.

Re-entry permit requires doing biometrics in the U.S. That’d take a few weeks, which doesn’t seem to be in line with what OP wants. Without knowing the specifics, entering and then 3-4 months at home seems more practical based on what they’ve said. Also worth raising the elephant in the room that it looks like OP’s spouse doesn’t actually have immigrant intent. I hinted at it above, but that’s grounds for CBP to deny entry. Obviously no one wants to go through the IR-1 process twice, but this is something they should have consulted about before progressing to the consulate stage. Re-entry permits aren’t really designed for people to circumvent the normal expectations of someone entering the first time. Obviously they’re free to apply and if it works that’s great. But the most straightforward route seems to be actually to immigrate.

Yeah, it depends on where the funding is coming from, but a lot of the government can keep working throughout a shutdown. If you’re really board you can go to the Part II of the FAST Book and look up the type of fund something is. Generally only items in general funds shut down. USCIS looks to have some general funds, but obviously much more are special funds.

I would also avoid proactively volunteering that you haven’t decided a return date to CBP on initial entry. Obviously tell them the truth if asked, but they can deny entry on IR-1 for lack of immigrant intent. A visa is just permission from the consulate to request that CBP admits you under a specified class of admission.

Also worth noting that while technically permitted 1 year outside the U.S. as an LPR, CBP starts getting angsty and asking questions at six months. I wouldn’t initially enter and then leave for longer than 120 days personally. Especially under the current administration.

Because you’re struggling with the concept of following the literal meaning of forms written at the level a 10-year-old should be able to follow. The biggest issue most people face is they overthink and read meaning into the directions. It’s a lot easier to introduce ambiguity with words when it’s not your native language, even when you have a very high-level of competency in the language. That is absolutely not a knock on your language skills. It’s that a good way to avoid that is to confirm your understanding of what it’s asking you with a native speaker. I do it all the time in Spanish, and I use Spanish professionally. There’s really no way a native English speaker would see any ambiguity in the I-130A. It’s a very straightforward form that can be completed in 30 minuets if you just take the instructions for their literal meaning. If you do have questions, we’re more than happy to help, but I think this could cut down on a lot of them.

You can also use your maiden name as a middle name for non-government purposes without legally changing it.

It’s hard to keep track of what’s been mentioned as there’s yet another topic somewhere that hasn’t been merged that you started related to the I-130A. I would really encourage your spouse to read through it with you rather than you do it on your own. All US government forms are written in literal plain English; which means it is written at the level where a native English speaker who has completed primary school will be able to understand it. My Spanish is near native, but I sometimes have questions when dealing with Chilean government paperwork and my husband explains it to me. Having a native speaker help with forms is useful even when there’s a high level of second language proficiency. Go over the form with your spouse and tell them to read it literally with no guesses or speculation as to what something might mean. That will likely answer most of your questions.

My personal favorite last name law is in Chile — they legally have two last names but in practice only use the paternal one (that goes first.) If for some reason you don’t like your dad you are permitted by law to change the order of the last names once, and only once. Having daddy issues was the actual reason this major change to the law was permitted a few years ago. As far as I’m aware, even if there’s a name change out of country you’re stuck with your birth last name otherwise.

In some Latin American countries it might not even be possible. The concept of changing last names is very foreign in a lot of the Spanish speaking world. To the point where the law to change names might not exist just because no one in power has ever realized it’s something anyone would ever want to do.

I linked you to the instructions for the I-130/I-130A on the other topic you have on this. That plus the RFE should be enough.

It’s asking for domicillios.

And if the I-485 is denied a notice to appear will be issued which will make it even more complicated. Jurisdiction would shift from USCIS to EOIR.

Read the file I linked in my earlier post. It contains an analysis as to what USCIS considers to be misrepresentation for the purposes of AOS. People like to focus on intent, but the more important question is misrepresentation (as defined by BIA and the INA; again, the file I linked contains a discussion of this.) The overwhelming majority of spousal AOS cases are granted, including overstays and people on tourist visas. AOS cures a lot by action of law and local field offices have discretion to grant adjustment in gray areas. The issue you will run into is that: 1) West Africa is the most fraud prone region of the world on spousal immigration, causing the government to ask more questions. 2) You had an interview with a consular official who will have recorded what you said in writing and that will be analyzed 3) You had to talk to CBP and as a non-VWP country they likely asked questions that might have been recorded in writing in the admission record. That means you have two chances for the government to accuse you of misrepresentation. Again, read the AAO file I linked to. If you don’t think you misrepresented to a government official based on the standards discussed; your AOS might be granted as a matter of discretion in favor of family immigration. But I would expect significant questions in that regard under the current administration.

Correct — I edited after you quoted me. Pre-conceived intent and misrepresentation are different under the regulations. If you get waved through at the airport with no questions (it happens) and adjust, that’s not necessarily misrep. If you tell them you’re only here for a conference and then adjust the next day, that’s a bar for misrep. It’s why what was said to the CBP officer and the consulate matter. The question of misrepresentation is adjudicated first, then the question of intent. This AAO ruling explains it in a bit more detail. Worth reading for OP because AOS was denied in that case and it shows how broadly USCIS reads the statue on misrepresentation.

Even if there was preconceived intent, that’s not a bar to AOS in itself (Matter of Cavazos is still on the books and is binding on USCIS.) It’s not the same as fraud and is adjudicated differently. The question is what was said to the consulate/CBP upon entry, what was recorded in the visa file and admission record, and whether USCIS believes the actions after admission are materially inconsistent with what was told to the consulate and CBP in such a manner that it constitutes misrepresentation. If they do, then they can adjudicate as misrepresentation, which triggers a ban making the analysis for pre-conceived intent moot. They could also just refer the I-485 to an IJ for adjudication because it doesn’t pass the sniff test and that’d add a significant amount of time to the process even if the IJ grants adjustment. The change in administrations is a relevant factor here. Under Biden you likely would have been fine (for the reasons @pushbrk and I mentioned.) Current administration is much more likely to scrutinize all statements for misrepresentation.

It’s unclear if that’s when CR-1 was issued or when GC was issued, so theoretically could still be out of the 90 day period (i.e. CR-1 issued 9/30/2023; entered US 3/15/2024.) Its why the specific dates matter. Most likely within 90 days like you mentioned, but OP really does need to be specific with dates.

Historical norm in cases like this where they want to be strict is issuing a notice to appear, but that’s also an option. Not sure if the current climate has had any impact on their preference on detention vs. NTA and release. Important thing in OP’s case is not to sign anything whatever CBP does.

Doing a quick and dirty will (most states have government published default templates for non-complex cases) also is useful. I’d add that if you register your marriage in Colombia I also wouldn’t upload that as evidence. Latin American registros civiles are extremely particular on how things are recorded and if it lists the effective date of marriage as the day registered rather than the date of marriage it could also raise questions.