S2N

We’re saying the same thing: CBP determine class of admission at POE, which is different from which LPR status you ultimately end up with. You got one of the ones whom I mentioned was of the mind that CR-1 visa = CR-1 class of admission. That’s usually where the screwups with USCIS occur, which is why it’s worth asking them to admit you as IR-1. If they say no, it’s not a big deal. If they say yes, one less potential point of failure. There are CBP officers who will admit as IR-1 even on a CR-1 visa (you can search Reddit for proof of stamps showing that and pretty sure others here have mentioned it.) End of the day, anyone who enters after 2 years will eventually get a 10 year GC one way or the other, though.

Technically CBP is responsible for determining class of admission, and there are reports about some feeling very strongly that CR-1=CR-1. USCIS then reviews the admissions data and determines what green card to issue based on marriage date and date of admission. A lot of the reports of USCIS screwing this up comes from CBP admitting someone as CR-1, which USCIS should ignore when issuing the green card, but sometimes doesn’t and then you have to file I-90. That’s why it’s useful to verbally mention to CBP in a respectful way that the beneficiary should be admitted as IR-1 since it’s been over two years.

Visa is based on date of interview. Class of admission at POE is a grey area: some CBP officers say it’s based on visa, but if you ask nicely they might note IR-1 over CR-1 to make it less confusing to USCIS if it’s been over 2 years at the POE and they enter IR-1. Others default to the date of marriage since that’s what USCIS uses. It really is an officer-by-officer thing what they enter into the computer. I would ask it be noted IR-1 if she enters after the 2-year anniversary, though to make it less confusing for USCIS. If CBP refuses, not the worst thing in the world, though. 10-year green card vs. 2-year green card is based on length of marriage at point of entry, regardless of what CBP notes as class of admission. USCIS is supposed to compare date of marriage to date of entry and make the determination based on that, but sometimes they don’t and default to what CBP enters. If CBP notes CR-1 since the visa is CR-1, USCIS might screw this up when issuing the green card. In that case you’d file form I-90 for free immediately asking them to fix it. If your wife enters with an immigrant visa in your passport CBP will process her an an immigrant and she’ll be an LPR, even if you’d rather wait a few months so she gets the 10-year green card.

Easier said than done, I know, but have you considered looking for an additional stream of income? If you’re only a few thousand off a part-time job might be an option.

Above answer works: you provide evidence and a letter. They might have more questions and ask for more evidence, but if she’s not a filer there’s no requirement to file. The other option is to use FreeTaxUSA to file a return even if not required and report $1 in interest income (won’t have any tax impact but you have to report something for e-File.) Can be done for the three most recent tax years free online using efile and if the only source of income is SS, it’s incredibly easy to do. Can also have VITA do it Has non-immigration benefits as well since a lot of government programs are easier to access with a filed return and it closes off that SSN from identity theft (i.e. someone fraudulently filing a return using your sisters SSN and claiming a refund and then your sister getting hit with a bill.) Personal choice, but anytime someone brings up that they’re not required to file I always point out that anyone who qualifies as a non-filer is going to have a really simple return and 9/10 when dealing with the government it’s easier to just do the free simple thing rather than rely on an exception and have to explain it.

I’m the petitioner. Talking about something like Juan Garcia Fernandez and some documents only list Juan Garcia or Juan Garcia F. The online form made it mandatory to upload proof of legal name change if you listed any of those, which won’t exist. I added an additional response to that question noting the name and said it was not a legal change and because of the technical limitation was disclosing it as an additional response rather than directly on the question.

Chile has two legal last names but by convention the paternal last name is used on its own in many cases. Because of that my husband has documents that only list one of his last names. I uploaded an additional response when filing noting that I didn’t use the “additional names used” box of the online form because it asked for proof of a legal name change when there was none. We’ll see if we get an RFE, but I have a feeling “documents in similar but different names without a legal change” is somewhat common.

It’s a government resource that they only call if they have translation issues and they need an answer to a question: it’s better for you if they don’t use it because it means they don’t have questions or were able to get what they need without it. My point was if they really need a document translated to make an admission decision, they have the resources. Agreed, but I also wouldn’t pay to have a lease of a foreign apartment translated into English (or do it myself since it’d be a pain) on the unlikely event CBP wants to see it. Its obviously better to have items in English when possible, but wanted to clarify that if needed, they have resources to translate things that can only reasonably be in Italian. Up to OP/his wife what their risk tolerance is on the odds of needing an Italian rental contract in English to enter the country.

Worth noting that if it’s actually necessary (probably won’t be) they deputize flight attendants to translate and if that doesn’t work have access to a 24/7 translation line. Obviously English is preferred, but it’s also not really feasible to get a lot of these documents in English in my experience (but each CBP post will have at least one Spanish speaker on duty, so also not really an issue in our case.)

The answer is the same either way. You need the birth certificate from where you were born.

iPhones have a scan feature in notes that should allow you to take a picture and convert to a PDF. We did that for a lot of our documents for similar reasons to you (though you’re farther along in the process than we are.) Color vs black and white shouldn’t matter.

That is technically the law but the odds of it being enforced or discovered in this case are minimal. If I were OP, I’d advise his wife not to do anything like that again in the future and explain how to be super truthful, but it’s unlikely to interfere with her getting an immigrant visa. Also for clarity, I’m not advising OP to break any law, just noting the reality that his beneficiary is in all likelihood okay.

Yes, as that’s where you were born. Not trying to be snarky, but a country where you were not born can’t validate the records from the country where you were born as it isn’t in possession of them.

This Reddit post is the best reference point. Someone who claims to be an IO that works on consular I-130s updates it showing the PDs of his casework. As of yesterday he was processing 1/17/24

Emphasis on the last point. You are required to be truthful. You are not required to volunteer red flags unless explicitly asked.

It looks like we’re all giving answers without the full context and making assumptions. OP, if you want the best advice could you answer the following questions: 1) what state? 2) what last name did your wife apply under 3) Is your marriage certificate translated 4) What did they specifically say you needed to do for them to accept the foreign marriage certificate

California likely has capacity and requested additional cases. Your PD tracks with what’s currently being processed. You’ll likely have a decision soon.

They usually ask for it in lieu of a court order to change from a maiden name to a married last name. If that’s what’s going on it makes sense for them to be requesting it apostilled (or at least isn’t weird.) Presumably they could get it issued without a name change and change later if that’s what’s going on (and can ask the DMV this question.) Agreed just for a license without a name change would be something I’ve never heard of. It’d be useful to know what state OP is in.

Right, they had the correct documents for the visa since she’s here. The Department of State and USCIS don’t require apostilles. The DMV can require one, though. They aren’t bound by the State Department rules. It’s worth a shot showing them that list, but if they want an apostille, they’re well within their rights to require it. Based on OP’s original post, it seems that’s what was requested and they’re trying to avoid paying for it.

That could work, but the state could also want an apostille. It’s not something that’s required to get a visa, but it’s also just a good thing to have for a vital record when you know that you’re going to have a life in two countries. I’m assuming this probably relates to wanting to have a different last name than what’s on OP’s wife’s passport.

Your “new marriage” would not be legally valid as you’re already in a legal marriage. Entering an invalid marriage is not a workaround for not paying for an apostille.

Absolutely. They’re the single most important factor. It is true that the quickest way if there’s a willing joint sponsor is to get one when a consulate ignores assets. It’s also true that it’s possible to ask a consulate to reconsider and provide them an explicit roadmap, but that this will likely take longer. For many people applying for a spousal visa while separated, the speed of reunification is the most important factor, which is why the joint sponsor route is often suggested. For others, there are other considerations or there might not be a willing and qualified joint sponsor. Letting people know there’s multiple options and the pros and cons of both is one of the great benefits of VJ.

Most people would rather resolve their cases quicker and be with their loved ones faster rather than fight with the government to prove a point. That’s not weakness, that’s a rational cost benefit analysis, and that is why you hire a legal professional. They would be negligent in their fiduciary duty to you if they didn’t mention that the easiest way is to get a joint sponsor even if the government was wrong in the original denial. If someone is paying a lawyer, they have a right to be informed of that and decide if they want to fight on this point or take the easy way. Many if not most people will prefer the easy way, and that’s perfectly reasonable, especially if you’ve been separated from your spouse for 2+ years. And yes, like I said, it’s not the best option for everyone. Someone might not be able to find a joint sponsor or there may be reasons outside the immigration system to prefer to fight to qualify on assets. It looks like for you there were and it worked out. That doesn’t change that the best advice from a purely immigration perspective is that a joint sponsor is the quickest way if income doesn’t meet the threshold, so if it’s available and it’s something you are comfortable with having one lined up will speed up the process. For the overwhelming majority of people it’s not about being right or wrong, it’s about getting to live with their loved ones in the fastest manner.

Multiple people can be right here. @pushbrk is right in his earlier reply that people who could qualify by having large amounts of assets probably don’t want to involve a joint sponsor for non-immigration related reasons. @Larry and Marides is correct that it’s possible to prove to the government that you meet a regulation they have to follow even if they don’t want to follow it, and the best way to do it is to explicitly spell out for them how you meet a regulation they might not even be aware of. This is useful for people who have non-immigration reasons to not involve a joint sponsor or who can’t. But @OldUser’s point is arguably the strongest here and one I’ve said a few times recently related to tax questions: it is usually the path of least resistance to give the government the most common and easiest response that meets their request rather than to have a drawn-out argument with a consular official. Most of the people who will have I-864 issues are going to be people in school, middle-aged people living abroad, and retirees. Of those three groups, the only one where fighting with the government over whether your assets comply with the FAM rules might be easiest is retirees, who are also a lower percentage of applicants. For most people, a joint sponsor is the easiest and most effective way, and if it’s feasible and there’s not a reason unrelated to immigration to not find a joint sponsor, it’s probably the best option.

We used Google Slides to create a slide deck of all the photos (passport stamps, boarding passes, and photos of us and photos with friends and family) then downloaded it as a PDF and uploaded it as a combined file. Named it “Evidence of time together.pdf” or something like that. Advantage of using a PowerPoint/Google Slides format before PDFing is that it’s really easy to add captions below saying what’s in the pictures. Used Google Slides over PowerPoint only because I started it in the U.S. and finished it while I was in Chile; easier to sync between computers and I wasn’t going to be doing a presentation with it.