S2N

Another reason to plug global entry to any immigrant who qualifies. All LPRs can get it and if they are lucky enough to get a conditional approval some airports have walk-in interview on departure these days in addition to arrival.

Late post but also worth clarifying what the changes people are worried about are for anyone searching. USCIS is giving NTAs to some people with authorized stays to initiate removal proceedings if they’re out of status when the I-130/I-485 was filed. They are fully aware those people will never be deported: a claim to adjust status is a valid defense to removal. What the change in procedure amounts to is that they are requesting that immigration judges (IJ) adjudicate I-485s rather than adjudicating the cases themselves. The IJ has the option of adjudicating the I-485 themselves or dismissing the removal proceedings and sending the I-485 back to USCIS for adjudication. There are two likely reasons for this change: first, if the judge adjudicates the I-485 and denies it a removal order can be issued more quickly, second, it’s a deterrent to what many in the current administration view as a loophole in the immigration law that is fraud-prone. Going through an IJ essentially requires a lawyer and a lot more waiting. For all but a handful of countries it incentivizes doing consular processing over overstay and adjustment. This wouldn’t impact someone in OP’s case adjusting from an in status K-1.

The FAM language makes it safer, but it’s worth pointing out that FAM is non-binding on CBP or USCIS as they aren’t under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. Especially as K-1s are non-immigrant visas, CBP could refuse to honor it if the port of entry doesn’t think it’s a valid use of that class of admission. I’d classify this with the non-existent “90-day rule” of FAM procedures that you shouldn’t assume DHS will automatically agree with. Especially in the current environment. Hopefully/probably it’ll be fine, but wouldn’t be something I’d recommend to anyone. Spousal/Fiancee immigration has three or four steps: 1) proving entitlement to sponsor an intending immigrant (USCIS, I-130/I-129F, non-discretionary) 2) applying for the visa and proving the relationship and no bars to admissibility (Department of State, discretionary) 3) Seeking admission to the U.S. under a specific class of admission (CBP, discretionary) 4) K-1 only: Adjustment of Status (USCIS, discretionary except for specific refugee cases) The government can say no at any of the stages so it’s usually best not to give any of the agencies reason to second guess what the one before it did. Like I mentioned before, the risk isn’t with AOS since AOS cures any defect upon procedurally correct admission into the US even if the admission was in error on the part of CBP. The risk is that CBP has a different interpretation of the law than the State Department does. That might be a low risk, but it’s also not one I’d be comfortable advising anyone to take, especially in the current climate.

Not sure what you’re asking, but unsolicited evidence has no impact on processing time at the USCIS stage. All it does is add more evidence to the case file. Cases are sent to ISOs based on priority date. The my progress estimate is useless. I’ve been at 19 months since I filed 1/1/25. Based on current speeds of approximately 3 weeks per month the first approvals for January 2025 will start to trickle in around January 2026. It’ll likely still say I have 19 months left then.

To give an exact quote of the USCIS legislative affairs officer I got drinks with today, “all an I-130 says is you’re related. The Department of State can always say 'mmmmmm, you’re a bad person, no thanks.'” Obviously no judgment on OP or their situation, but there’s likely more at issue here than passport photos that could benefit from an immigration attorney.

Talking to both of them was the right call: I’m sorry you’re in this situation. I don’t do tax myself, but very familiar with it for a few reasons and have someone do my returns because of a variety of complexities that just make it easier to have someone with time in March to do the research and paperwork for me. Now you’re educated and you can have a discussion with your tax advisor(s) about what makes sense for you.

That’s forward looking tax planning and business formation, which is very different than tax compliance, which is what we’re talking about here. Two competent CPAs with the same set of facts on a small business should arrive at roughly the same results. It’s why in auditing financial statements, auditors hire their own tax accountants to recalculate the return and provision. There’s some judgement, but the work is largely reperformable. If you’re talking about forward looking tax planning, yeah, that does change depending on your advisor, but you can’t change the facts of the past year when filing. His total income is at most $36,000. It’d be very hard for that to be a complex setup. Two different trained professionals should arrive at roughly the same result unless the information provided to one is different than the information provided to the other. You don’t get that material a swing on that small an amount of income without the information drastically changing or the second guy massaging numbers like you suggest. That’s why talking to the first one to see the reason for the difference is critical. People don’t sign their names on returns they know are going to cost their clients thousands.

For an individual who isn’t trained, yes. Schedule C isn’t that difficult for a professional. It’s why small shops tend to do them and larger firms ignore them. They’re fairly simple even for an accountant who doesn’t have a tax specialization to pick up vs. something more complex like partnerships. There’s not “so many ways” to do taxes for something like Schedule C, and yes, a CPA has an ethical obligation to suggest amending to pay more if something was wrong and I know many who have. The differences you see between CPAs on stuff like this usually relates to how much data the client provides and what questions they ask the client. Large corporations there’s creativity involved, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. It’s standard tax compliance for an individual small business owner, and that’s pretty cut and dry. That’s also why I don’t think the first person messed up, oddly enough, and came to the same conclusion. The only way would be if OP misreported expenses on accident. Other CPA could be deciding not to write them off as not expenses to massage the total income, which is why I suggested talking to the first one to see what’s going on. It’s really weird for income to vary that much between tax professionals.

They also need to understand why the first CPA told them the deductions were permissible deductible business expenses (what I’m gathering from this story.) My guess is that they took a roll forward approach and relied upon OP’s assertions, which is a permissible approach for a CPA if they’re not engaged to also audit the numbers, but it’s legitimately odd that two different CPAs would have that big of a difference on small business/self-employed income. It’s not a particularly complex area of the tax code for accountants. I think they should get a joint sponsor either way for immigration purposes. Safer.

How did you underreport/overdeduct $10k+ in income? Did the previous CPA just role forward your assumptions/what you did the prior year and have you asked that CPA about it? My bigger concern would be the potential back taxes owed. It’s also weird the new CPA is telling you to amend so that you can meet the poverty guideline and not because you owe the federal government money.

No clue what a ROM is, but your plan would work from an I-130 perspective.

The only way to get there is if USCIS and an immigration judge rule against you… interesting as it might be for us nerds who like this stuff to read, I’d never suggest anyone try to make it through with edge cases. Sounds pretty unenjoyable even if you win.

Agreed. The POE will be critical here. BIA held in Matter of Quilantan that someone who had no visa or other permission to enter and was waved through the southern border in the pre-WHTI days without question when the driver of the car she was in said they were a U.S. citizen had been inspected and admitted for the purposes of AOS, because the admission and inspection was procedurally correct even if it was not lawful. Would seem to cover a case where CBP admits someone under a class they’re not eligible for without asking any questions (I am not a lawyer.) But if they ask questions then that’s where the trouble starts and USCIS very much could dig into this for misrepresentation since CBP should turn them away at the POE as not eligible to be admitted under K-1. Basically they need CBP to screw up and not ask questions, which is perfectly legal: the visa gives the privilege of being considered for that class of admission. It’s just a horrible legal strategy if your best chance is the incompetence of government officials. Honestly it’d make a fascinating BIA case to read, but there’s no one who wants their journey to be a precedent case…

Honestly on the K-1 after an online marriage, I don’t see the denial of AOS really as the major risk — once she’s physically here in theory the class of admission or whether it’s the correct one doesn’t matter all that much as AOS should cure it (though with the current administration that’s changing.) The bigger risk I see here is CBP sees a marriage certificate and refuses to admit as K-1 and sends her back since she doesn’t meet the conditions for the class of admission the visa allows her to apply for. This is one of the few fiancée or spousal cases where reminding people that a visa isn’t permission to enter the U.S., it’s permission to ask permission to enter the U.S. is relevant.

Right. We agree on all that. I just think it’s odd they don’t allow traditional betrothal ceremonies for K-1 but unconsummated Utah weddings are allowed. Put in government terms: the IRS would consider you married for a 1040 but USCIS unmarried for I-129F. That’s an odd inconsistency.

That’s odd. Some engagement ceremonies make one too married for K-1 but not married enough for CR-1. If it worked for you that’s a good data point, though.

Um, that’s not at all what anyone said. They said that your application will likely have additional issues beyond just whether it was virtual or not, and you need to consider the specifics of Morocco when making your decision. If the specifics of Morocco make it to inconvenient to you, you’ll need to consider other options, but to be clear, the other issues of there being a large age difference in a high fraud country will remain and will continue to be the largest issue.

I’ve never seen it interpreted that way. The only reason they’re asking you to apply for CBRA is they think your children qualify.

If you naturalized under the 5 year rule that’s five years based on my understanding.

Current ITIN processing timeline is 2 months. Depends on when you filed your I-130 vs. when you file taxes, but I think you can count on your fingers the people who are in the U.S. before they get an ITIN these days. The paper returns will take longer to process, though, but the actual issuance of an ITIN won’t. OP has already filed for an ITIN, but it’s almost always beneficial to file MFJ even during the immigration process because in addition to getting more money back sooner, you also open up access to the U.S. banking system for your spouse even if they’re overseas once they have an ITIN. This ability to create a U.S. credit history while waiting on a visa so that you land with one is a huge non-tax reason why the ITIN path is beneficial for most. It also is very strong evidence of a bona fide relationship. It’s financial commingling, which is the gold standard for USCIS. It’s certainly not required in a consular case, but it is good evidence. Like I said, OP has already filed MFJ and applied for an ITIN, but figured it worth responding for anyone else considering it. If someone can get a certified copy of their spouses passport or file at a TAC while the spouse is visiting, it’s almost always worth it. That’s not feasible for everyone, though.

That’s fine, but it’s not an open and shut straightforward case because you previously sponsored an ex-spouse. Might be an issue. Might not be. Just means you can expect extra scrutiny.

The only airports that’s potentially correct at are LAX and JFK just because of the populations that enter through them. Richer major metro areas plus large hubs = more people with GE. Even then most people say they breeze through, but I have seen reports of lines at those two. MIA, DFW, IAD, IAH, ORD, and PHL all have GE wait times of less than 5 seconds or less without the need for an app. That’s not every airport in the country, but those are most of the major ports of entry I’ve experienced or know people who have, and I can’t imagine the smaller POEs if taking longer. Also I’m not exaggerating when I say five seconds or less. That’s how long it takes the kiosk to take your picture and the officer to wave you through. @Claire1994: if you apply for GE (you should imo), and get your conditional approval, do enrollment on arrival when you land. It will drastically cut down on any hassle because of the pre-vetting. My husband uses MPC when he enters the U.S. because it also speeds things up, so it’s a good fallback, but like @OldUser mentioned, there’s less pre-vetting so higher chance of asking questions or secondary than GE.

I can’t find the thread right now because r/USCIS is basically 90% AOS from overstay so search is tough since all the threads have the same keywords, but a few lawyers there were mentioning they’re starting to see it with their clients. They didn’t think it would change the outcome, but just a way to make the process more cumbersome. That sub tends to give fairly accurate anecdotes of what’s trickling through USCIS before you start seeing it in the data dumps. I’m sure if it becomes a bigger issue we’ll see more of it here, but also figured it was worth mentioning as a possibility to someone who hasn’t filed yet, while acknowledging it’s a new trend and no one really knows what the new administrations plans are long-term.

Something to be aware of that has popped up elsewhere is that there are reports on other immigration forums from immigration lawyers that some field offices are referring adjustment of status cases from B-1/B-2 to immigration judges for adjudication rather than adjudicating the I-485 themselves. Recent trend so not much data, but something to be aware of. It wouldn’t impact the end result, but would make things more expensive.

Adding to what @TBoneTX said about thriving on truth: the advice given to people going through the security clearance process is that the people who investigate and adjudicate are able to tell the difference between not understanding a question on a massive form and an intentional lie or omission because they’ve reviewed thousands of these and can tell the difference. Said more bluntly: no one’s as special as they think, including with stuff like that. Same is true of consular officers reviewing your case. They’ve done plenty of these. They know the difference between an honest mistake and a lie because you’re likely not the first person to have made the mistake who they’ve processed.