S2N

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.

Also if the green card is not expired insist on being admitted to the United States and do not sign anything. CBP might ask you to sign documents saying you gave up your legal permanent residency. You do not have to sign them. If the GC has not expired and you’re within the U.S., only an immigration judge can remove LPR status. CBP can issue you a notice to appear before an immigration judge, but that is infinitely better than you voluntarily relinquishing status. Odds are they give you a lecture and let you in without doing any of that because CBP likes to avoid paperwork, but depending on the officer you get they could send you to secondary where you’ll get to experience what I described above.

Because beneficiary is abroad. That’s the reason. I-130 instructions (PDF): page 1, NOTE 1

Yep. OP was asking about online, but useful clarification for anyone else who finds this by searching.

The one exception to the dual intent rule. Of course

Also worth noting P-1 is dual intent. Meaning that if you wanted to you are allowed to hop on a plane tomorrow, land in the U.S., and file for AOS. You have to establish that you have a foreign residence that you plan to maintain when you get the visa, but you are permitted to enter the United States with immigrant intent. There are disadvantages to that route (it costs more and you can’t leave the country until they give you advanced parole or a green card), but you’re both at the age where people change plans on work, retirement, etc. and you might want to get a green card more quickly (AOS usually processes faster if you’re already in the U.S.; main advantage if you just want to get the green card done and over.) CR-1/IR-1 is cheaper and less paperwork overall, but takes longer. End of the day depends on what your priorities are. P-1 doesn’t make anything more difficult. Just gives you more options than most have.

Agreed with this. My comment was mainly if they wanted to avoid a joint sponsor. Some people do. If that’s not something they care about they can upload it before.

You can try it the lawyer’s way and if it works you don’t need a joint sponsor. To be safe, you can have one lined up. If they think you need one, provide the joint sponsor’s I-864 at the consulate. If the consulate doesn’t ask for one, you can tear it up. Avoiding having an actual joint sponsor is a priority for a lot of people, which is why the lawyer probably advised you the way he did.

They have a difficult situation and a lawyer likely has seen the equivalent or more difficult. They’ll be paying for unbiased advice that has recent experience dealing with the immigration system in difficult cases. Most reputable lawyers offer consultations and many don’t take cases they don’t think they have a decent chance of bringing about a positive outcome. It looks like OP had issues structuring their presentation of the evidence last time — that’s also something a good lawyer can help with. To be honest, I think a lot of trips with the intent of accumulating in-person time together with the goal of accumulating evidence is a waste of money if a lawyer reviews the case and doesn’t think even that would help because of the case history. At that point they should consider other options like the wife moving there or moving to a third-country. Speaking personally, as the USC spouse, I’d prefer to be told there’s zero chance of a positive outcome by a professional who has worked in the field before making either of those choices because of perceived difficulties with the visa. On the overall point, it’s ultimately not our choice how OP and his wife decide to proceed. I think he’s received good advice here, and should be able to weigh it when deciding what they want to do.

That’s not really any of our business to say. I agree with the advice that this will be difficult, but there’s no use in time spent here telling OP that his marriage isn’t real, and to be honest it’s uncharitable at best. They need to spend more time together, and this is going to be difficult. If they want to do it, they should consult professional help. Value judgments on their relationship aren’t helpful.

I don’t disagree with anything anyone else here has said, but I also don’t believe in beating a dead horse. If you guys are committed to this the best steps are: 1) Consult a lawyer 2) Your wife should spend every second of her vacation with you and your family. Third countries are also fine, but in countries where family is prioritized time with family also matters. 3)If she’s not already filing joint taxes, she should start doing this in 2026, even consider amending and getting you an ITIN this year. It’ll be advantageous for her financially and will show some degree of commingling (it’s not necessary, and people on this site downplay it sometimes, but it’s usually listed as evidence you can provide in RFEs and NOIDs. I choose to take the government at its word that it helps.) 4) If you have other joint assets that’s a positive, but don’t do anything that looks manufactured Listed in order of importance. Also I can’t emphasize enough that I agree with others this is a tough case, but I also believe in trying to be solution oriented. If you’re convinced this is a legitimate marriage, great. You have work to do to prove that to the government.

Assuming you’re referencing the regular I-130: typing your name in the box is a valid e-signature for that form. For form I-130A, any required signatures need to be wet signatures. If the spouse is outside the United States at the time of submission their signature is not required.

Agree with the above, but if you’re dead set on restarting now, I’d suggesting talking to a competent immigration attorney. You don’t have a straightforward case.

Correct. This is not work, even by the overly broad standards a lot of people on the internet apply to the word

If you’re really curious you can FOIA the CBP entry/exit records and see what they wrote in their record of the secondary screening. They can black out sensitive parts, but you might be able to gather from the overall narrative what their concern was if there was one.

Agree with pushbrk. Approved I-130s never expire. You just need to pay the visa fee within the first year and log in at least once a year to keep it active. The other recommendation is to send NVC an email once a year after logging in noting that you wish to keep the case open and that the email is a record of contact. You don’t absolutely have to do this part, but it will give you a paper trail in case of any glitches. I’d set a calendar reminder every 6 months and log on just to make sure you don’t accidentally forget.

For clarity on timing on my answer: I’d try to time it so that you have enough time to get your taxes ready and the transcripts generate. Assuming you get all 1099s on 2/15 and you or your tax accountant can do a quick turnaround and get everything filed before 3/15, that’d look like: —12/30: upload everything to NVC —1/31: DQ’d with the asset based form, sent to Madrid. —Between 2/15-3/15: file taxes —2 weeks after taxes accepted: transcripts generate —Day transcripts generate upload new I-864 and new transcripts to CEAC —3/31-4/30: interview in Madrid, bring updated I-864 and transcripts. If needed, you could file 1040-X after the beneficiary moves but it might not be needed here if you originally file MFJ — standard dedication is above the I-864 threshold so if you’re at $31.5k or less there’d be no need to amend for tax reasons. Also for the record, nothing in this post is not legal or tax advice.

@pushbrk has a lot more experience on this than I do, but speaking personally, I’d try for both the assets method and since we’re so close to tax season relatively speaking, stalling at NVC and talking a less aggressive approach to taxes this year. My assumption on the latter is that the actual tax inflows are a lot more than $14k as you couldn’t pay the property taxes, utilities, and condo fees in Miami and also have enough money for food on $14k. If that’s the case it’s absolutely possible to claim less deductions and then amend once the beneficiary is here. Taking the “both/and” approach will give you more security in case you run into pushback on the assets or make a mistake in the preparation of the I-864 that makes the CO question whether the assets qualify. You can then present a case that both is above the income threshold and has assets to make it stronger if it’s just barely above it.

The general rule of thumb with the government is that the people adjudicating these forms have seen a lot of them and can tell the difference between a mistake and an intentional omission.

There’s theoretically more on the way, but as I said in another post on a similar topic… I don’t see much changing. USCIS can only take administrative measures. Like making it 12/20 instead of 6/10 and increasing the pool of questions. Small stuff like that has to go through all the standard red tape, but is relatively straightforward. They really can’t really do much more, and while changing the test is an administrative measure, a full revamp of the naturalization exam would take significant time: they’d have to both remake it and then probably have to go through the rule making process and then deal with inevitable challenges in court. Honestly 12/20 is easier than 6/10 because it gives you more room for errors (i.e. bad luck of the draw is less likely to disqualify you.) My read of the noise the USCIS director is making on the changes he wants to see on this and other issues is that he’s making a lot of noise to signal to those in the West Wing he’s ready for the big leagues when the DHS secretary spot opens up in a year or two.

So quick turnaround. Still, that brings us pretty close to tax filing season. If going through your 2024 taxes you see areas where you were being aggressive on deductions that would bring you above the income threshold for 2025, it might be worth stalling at NVC until November/December and then uploading a new I-864 with the 2025 tax return in February if you want to avoid the ambiguity of the assets. How you want to handle it is your choice and not trying to dissuade you from trying to qualify on assets or with a joint sponsor. Just trying to provide options.

IIRC from another post OP was trying to have the interview in Madrid. Does anyone know how long that usually takes? If the issue on income was being aggressive on business deductions, we’re getting around the timeframe where the 1040 for 2026 might be able to resolve the issue. Being less aggressive with deductions and then doing a 1040-X once immigration is complete might be a path forward that makes the asset question not an issue.