S2N

I don’t think you can arrive at the final conclusion yet from the publicly known. A cop getting angsty because of past experience and shooting because he honestly was in fear of his life, when another officer who didn’t have his experience with cars wouldn’t is likely not a clean shot. Especially when it was done multiple times when he was out of harms way. The officer can truly think he’s in danger and it still not be justified because he wasn’t thinking clearly. We just need to wait out the facts. I don’t know your background, but unless you’re one of the FBI agents investigating this or you have access to some non-public information, then you haven’t. There’s no reputable source reporting this and the facts around it are in dispute. The best we can say is it’s possible.

Theres zero evidence she hit him. She might have — we don’t know. I don’t like speculating because the simple fact is we don’t know all of what happened. My best guess from what I’ve seen is she got spooked by the officer with his hand on the car, and hearing orders to move, tried to flee by turning, which was stupid. The one who shot her had a previous history of vehicle encounters that caused him to react with deadly force when others likely wouldn’t have. Leading to a tragedy all around. But we point blank don’t know, and I could be wrong. Just like those who are calling it clearly justified could be wrong. The best thing to do is wait the investigation out. I have zero problem changing my initial perception if the facts indicate otherwise.

We don’t know the full facts and circumstances of why she was shot. To say otherwise, either against ICE or in favor of them, is oversimplifying what is fairly obviously not a clear cut situation.

I live in an area that had increased ICE presence: I don’t think the protestors are doing anything positive, but the ICE presence is actually impacting legal immigrants as well. The gripe is that they’re going beyond the laws Congress wrote or enforcing them in a reckless way that puts US citizens at risk for detention or at the very least economic loss. Not that any of the protestors in the streets could explain it that way. As an example, I’m friends with a few local Central American immigrants who are naturalized citizens that work in upscale bars around me. They uber to and from work now rather than driving because they’re afraid of getting detained because the push in our area has been very broad and they don’t have passports even if naturalized. Ubering to work today as a restaurant worker, even if well paid, isn’t economically sustainable. I don’t see the solution as getting physically between LEO’s and houses (that’s stupid for any number of reasons), but the grip is that there’s a very strong sense in local *legal* immigrant communities that the people who came here legally are also at risk.

Sure, but federal law doesn’t authorize the death penalty for interfering with federal officers. A bit tongue in cheek, but LEO’s are held to a higher standard than the public. If there’s a systemic reform that can help here, that’s a positive thing. I don’t think anyone thinks this woman’s death was a good thing. If there’s a way to avoid it in the future. That’s positive.

Sure; no disagreement there. But typically the expectation is the government is held to a higher standard when it takes a life, since there’s functionally no recourse when a LEO decides to use deadly force. The federal courts can handle the State/Federal jurisdiction questions and the role the deceased had in it will be handled in the overall investigation. Yes. This. Even if the officer isn’t personally culpable to the point of a crime, it doesn’t mean that as an agent of the government he acted correctly, legally, or in this best manner. There have been more federal shootings even in the last week, probably because federal officers have been in the streets interacting more with people than they’re accustomed to. Using this investigation as a way to see if there’s more general reforms would be useful.

And that’s something his defense counsel could argue to investigators. We don’t just take government agents at their word that it was the only option. I disagree with that point of view and think it’s overly permissive to the government, but I understand that it’s an argument made in good faith. The entire point of my comments is that I think a rush to judgment on either side isn’t warranted based on what’s come out, and that it’s healthy to be skeptical of anyone when they have taken a life, but especially the government. Yes, what his state of mind would have been assuming he was rationale is what matters. The fact that he was dragged makes it more likely he was not thinking rationally through no fault of his own; which increases the chances of it not being legal on the part of the government even if he wouldn’t have any culpability. That goes to what I was hinting at earlier — there’s likely more reforms needed. Why did ICE have an officer who had been dragged by a car doing house-to-house visits on a street in an area that was known to be hostile? That’s a reasonable question to ask.

And the question is not whether he believed that. Given the fact he was dragged at a traffic stop, I’m pretty sure he did. That’s awful and a tragedy. The question is if a reasonable third-party would believe that. From what has come out, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to make that conclusion yet. It’s also hampered by the fact that reasonable people of goodwill can and do disagree, which like I said, is why we have investigations, grand juries, and juries. The taking of life by the government is always a tragedy, even when justified, because it’s the use of the supreme power of the state against someone with no recourse. A full investigation doesn’t just take his word that he was afraid for his life/serious injury. It looks to see if that belief is justified. That’s what we need to take place now.

Could you please provide a source? All the papers are reporting that hasn’t been verified. Not exactly. If a reasonable person in his position knowing all the facts he did would reach the same conclusion, then it’s authorized. He could believe his life was in danger and it still be a crime because his belief was not reasonable.

I’m sure there is as well. I also don’t think there’s any evidence he was hit yet, unless something has come out in the last 24 hours that I missed. The videos I’ve seen seem to suggest he wasn’t, but hoping to get more so there’s a full accounting, wherever that lands. Its also looks like he was dragged in a routine traffic stop last year. That probably had an impact on his state of mind which would of course impact the analysis here. My initial thought on this is that it could go either way on legality, but there’s probably a more systemic problem this represents. The loss of one life is a tragedy, but if there’s reforms that can come from it, that’s where the investigation comes into play.

Sorry — I was going off of the newspapers that only show the one cell video and talk about it — out of the states right now and haven’t been following TV news where the other videos appear to be circulating. My bad. How many do we have now? From what I could tell it’s the cell video and two low-quality home surveillance videos? Looked through the additional ones I could find and they don’t really change my overall point that it’s hard to tell what what happened.

Not enough is known. There’s a lot of factors that go into use of force from both a legal and moral standpoint, but the use of non-lethal force in a split second over lethal force isn’t just a movies thing. The question is if a reasonable person knowing all the same things the officer knew would conclude killing another person was necessary for him to save his own life and the life of those around him (I’m sure I’m not stating it exactly, but that’s the idea.) From what I saw, even if I agree it could be reasonable to use lethal force for the first shot because of the split second question, I would not have concluded that it was necessary for me to fire two additional shots into the vehicle after I was out of the way and prevent a doctor who was on the scene from giving treatment in order to save my own life. That said, we only have one angle of it from a cell phone video. Hopefully there’s body cams or other evidence that can provide a clearer picture of the exact sequence of events. Reasonable people can disagree on what’s reasonable. That’s why there’s investigations, grand juries, and juries.

The ultimate question here isn’t if the victim acted correctly (driving off in your car while a LEO is holding onto a handle is obviously not okay…) Its whether the use of deadly force was justified under the law. Ignoring the specifics of the agency involved, I think the normal expectation would be you shoot at the tires not the person if you think they’re trying to ram you. I’d like to see an independent congressional commissioned investigation because I don’t have confidence in the Bondi-era DOJ to not put out a politicized propaganda piece, but there’s also issues with allowing local cops to investigate federal LEOs. That plus I suspect whatever lessons there are to be learned from this can be applied to other cases. Fully aware it’s not going to happen, but one can dream.

While everything everyone else said here is correct, I’ll give a slightly more direct answer: USCIS is approving most straightforward cases in around 13 months. She could always get unlucky, but at current speeds most people (~60% based on historical data) who filed in March 2025 will be approved in April 2026. Another 20% will take 17 months at current speeds. The remaining 10% will face longer processing for a variety of reasons.

You’re still within a month of the most recent PDs getting approved. As I mentioned above, that’s not a big deal. It’s when it gets over a month that you’ll likely have to wait 3-4 extra months in the slow queue. Also what country is the beneficiary from?

Congrats! Have fun with all the new paperwork that needs to be filled out! Seriously, congratulations though. That also hopefully means those of us who filed early January are 3ish weeks out

Noting while this is technically true if under the filing threshold, it is almost always better to file anyway as the FEIE would wipe the tax liability to zero. It has benefits outside of immigration and if a consular official isn’t familiar with the filing limits (it happens), it saves time explaining it to them. There’s virtually no reason to not file a return if you have the time. Even if the income is zero, someone can just write in $1 in interest and file.

I’m assuming married filing separately as filing status since you’re likely claiming the foreign earned income exclusion and will owe nothing. On this assumption, just use freetaxusa.com’s prior year software (here) to do 2022, 2023, and 2024. You will need to do a paper return for 2022, and because your spouse presumably doesn’t have an SSN and you’re already filing paper for 2022, you might as well do it paper for 2023 and 2024 as well as it’ll be easier (and might be required for 2023.) For the years you are married you will select “Married Filing Separately” and write in “NRA” (for non-resident alien) in the spot where it asks for SSN/ITIN. Mail these in (using the registered mail service of your country; not courier) to the the addresses listed on the IRS website that best describe your situation. This all need to be mailed (not courier) separately. Take a photocopy of all signed returns and proof of mailing you received from the foreign mail service. Depending on timing, rinse and repeat for 2025. I would also suggest doing 2021 and any missing within the last 7 years for other reasons, but your last three years until tax filing opens up in a few weeks is what’s needed for immediate immigration purposes. Also I ordinarily would not recommend paper returns or MFS, but given your situation it’s the absolute quickest way to get it done unless you want to pay a certified acceptance agent to handle it for you, which would be costly and time consuming. If you don’t qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion your best bet is to talk to a certified acceptance since multi-jurisdictional taxes not covered by FEIE it become really complicated really fast. Disclaimer that is neither tax or legal advice and if you’re uncomfortable following the instructions on Free Tax USA you should consult a competent tax advisor licensed to practice before the IRS (this goes for any other tax software of your choice; not endorsing FTUSA, but they are usually considered the least scammy tax software.)

I’m 1/1/25 NSC. I’m bothering my dear husband to find his childhood vaccination records because best guest would be late January/early February for him. Some of the API scraping sites are less great now thanks to very recent USCIS policy changes, but it’s still pretty easy to see where the bulk of the approvals are from on the immigration Reddits/Discords/Facebook groups. VJ approvals tend to lag behind for some reason (like I said, my guess is because people with issues come here for advice skewing our data.)

Most recent approvals are from PD 12/4/25. You’re only a week off from that. It’s usually when you’re a month off from the most recent approvals that you’re in for a wait. Also, high fraud risk country so longer wait wouldn’t be surprising if it does turn out to be in the cards. Doesn’t mean a rejection or RFE, just more going on behind the scenes.

I agree completely, I was just thinking of official solutions that could be tried at the same time. They’re in “try all options” space right now.

Whether it is classed as exchange revenue or donation doesn’t really matter — it’s perfectly within the norm for the government to enter into transactions where the a member of the public receives a benefit in exchange for a monetary contribution to the government. OMB will figure out the classification of it as exchange revenue or donation for financial reporting purposes probably around July of 2026 when they issue the annual financial reporting guidance to agencies. It’s definitely not a bribe, and FPCA wouldn’t apply to a contribution to an executive department of the United States government that has no power at all over immigration policy (Commerce.) This is similar to a lot of the European golden visas that allowed contributions to state founded “cultural foundations” and follows that playbook. They could create a wholly owned government entity to handle the donations, but I don’t think that would help with the corruption concerns. They’re also not paying the $1mil to DoS or DHS. They’re paying it to Commerce. I maintain it’s less corrupt than the current EB-5 system, which miserably fails at its stated goals of job creation. It’s a shady visa that really should be done away with. How it works in practice is you pay an upfront investment to a middle man or rich developer who then identifies a pre-existing construction project they were already going to build with workers that probably already worked at another LLC owned by the same group of people, and moves forward with plans that were going to happen one way or another. The Kushners were big into using it with foreign investors during Trump 1.0 Paying the government $1mil directly is a lot more above board than the government subsidizing construction companies and middle men to accept cash from rich foreign investors. Especially when the current government has such deep ties to the real estate industry. The fact we’re even having this discussion illustrates the point: it’s very difficult to see what’s actually going on with EB-5 and track who benefits. $1mil directly to a government agency will be tracked in published financial reports.

I know someone who worked at USCIS legislative affairs for a few decades and recently retired. Apparently there’s a separate system for tracking any case where there’s been a congressional inquiry and that they usually deal with professional congressional staffers whose dedicated jobs is to finding solutions to the more difficult cases. For the standard “my I-130 has been pending less than the standard processing time and I miss my spouse!” It’s not useful, but on anything remotely out of the ordinary such as “my H1-B expires and I need to work while I-1485 is pending because my employer legally can’t renew it thanks to layoffs” a congressional inquiry could help. OP should still plan for the worst, but it’s the best bet.

Not necessarily. A good constituent services office can get things that are high priority approved very quickly. That’s the whole point of reaching out to them. It’s far from guaranteed, but in OP’s specific circumstance it’s the Hail Mary option. Best course of action is to call them and talk to someone while also planning alternatives for it not working.

The government can receive gifts from the public. The Department of Commerce is being listed as the beneficiary. Honestly from a clean-hands perspective it’s less sketchy than EB-5, which is essentially just the government subsidizing commercial real estate developers and directing money to well-connected middle man. It’s wildly unpopular with members of Congress of both parties.