Nagpetisyon

If you have started the K1 process, fill out your timeline so we can understand where you are in the procedure and can guide you whether the I-134 or I-864 is your most important concern now.

Form I-134 is created to accompany the fiancee to her interview at the embassy with hopes of being granted the K1 visa. The support in question is for the 90 day period granted on the K1. If the person gets the visa, arrives in America and gets married, the I-864 is filed with the application for Adjustment of Status in hopes to get a Green Card. If the person submitting the I-864 does not meet the income requirements, they must enlist another person to fill out an added I-864 as an additional financial sponsor.

In these crazy days of immigration hassles, it is refreshing to hear the good news of a well deserved outcome. 😀

Yes, the text of the bill lists some conditions which would not be minor changes. It's always interesting to see how many people want immigrants to have no access to public benefits without realizing what limits are already in place.

PAUSE Act of 2025 (H.R. 6225) "Pausing on Admissions Until Security Ensured Act" of 2025, House of Representatives Limitation on the ability to issue any visa or provide any status under the immigration laws until certain conditions have been met. Six conditions are listed. This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on November 20, 2025. It will be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole. 9 Republican co-sponsors Estimates of 7% chance of getting past committee, 1% chance of being enacted https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr6225

Along with the selective removal of immigrants from Boston naturalization ceremony https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXJgBOsQuzs is a similar occurance in Indianapolis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcUjF43zpvc Most disturbing here is: whether notified by mail or pulled before oath administered, these people were not given details on "what's next?", raising their fears about their new status.

December 10th opinion piece at Newsweek Ending Dual Citizenship Is Impractical and Divisive

I agree it is prudent of the media to get the entire story ( the WHY ) in addition to reporting the puzzling incidents. Only after reporting on more such incidents may a pattern become clear ( e.g. enforcement of this type only in certain cities/states, or with certain visa types). The December 2 changes regarding immigrants from 19 countries was stated publicly in a Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192, but it is not clear if recent ICE detentions at USCIS interviews are a result of a stated policy and are applied nationwide or targetted. It may be worthwhile for the media to investigate the validity of that "leaked USCIS memo" saying immigration interview officers are to be messaging ICE during green card interviews if there is an out of status issue in the past. At present this is a rumored memo and not a published office policy or public directive.

People looking at these incidents and saying, "cannot be happening, nothing like this has occurred in past USCIS customs" need to remember the parent organization of USCIS has a modified mission this year (deportation), and USCIS could and will change habits to help the apprehension numbers ( low hanging fruit). Just because typical USCIS interviews did not last more than 30 minutes in the past doesn't mean interviewers now may be probing longer and more deeply ( to their credit ) or stretching out the interview until ICE can arrive outside the door.

It is a stark truth. With the current climate of searching for immigrants out of status for ANY amount of time, being under the protection of a I-485 submission before day 91 is a wise move, perhaps not realized until you someday show up for the interview to grant that green card.

Unconfirmed reports claim USCIS office employees coordinate with ICE on-site for arrests during routine immigration interviews. This gets more attention following a recent series of apprehensions in San Diego during Green Card interviews. A "leaked memo" details possible practices at interviews

Yes - obviously - the medical exam before the interview is mandatory, with results communicated to the embassy.

For applicants from the 19 countries, the December 2nd USCIS guidance is that there is a pause on processing actions which bring a benefit to those applicants. Benefits include: Asylum, Green card applications, Employment applications, Citizenship ( including administering the oath ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY9fxGjIPXM

Not a lot of instructions accompany an online form. One has to relay on external guides to completing the form, and assess the quality of information provided by people who have completed the online form and gone on to success with visa issuance. Kind of how we're getting and assessing advice from other participants in this forum, eh?

Results of the medical exam will be in the embassy's hands before the interview, and "the records" in the hands of the immigrant who received needed shots. DS-160 can be submitted after the medical and before the interview, thus making a true statement upon its submission that records are on hand. Simply a matter of timing.

Somewhat related poor behavior: Immigrants from those 19 countries the Administration is focussing on were pulled out of line as they entered their citizenship swearing-in ceremony, told they could not participate. Implication seems one section of the US government does not believe the ability of another department to investigate and approve citizenship applicants. https://people.com/immigrants-approved-for-citizenship-pulled-out-by-officials-at-oath-ceremony-11863779 https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-12-05/immigrants-kept-from-faneuil-hall-citizenship-ceremony-as-feds-crackdown-nationwide

Cannot find where I said "expert". 🤔 Perhaps you'll point me to those "official instructions". Would be a nice reference for all of us to have. 😁

In some states, the issue for healthcare marketplace eligibility is whether the immigrant has legal status. So if the immigrant does not have a green card, but has applied (I-485) while in the window of their arrival visa, if Immigration regards them as having legal status then the state will also. Check with your state and their healthcare marketplace rules.

Online presenter of their K1 process noted that the DS-160 is something filled out to be evaluated at the time of interview. At the time of the interview, needed vaccinations will have been administered at the medical, and the applicant has the record of those vaccinations. Their point was that even if the applicant has no vaccination records at the time of online completion of the DS-160, they can answer the question about records "yes" because at the time the DS-160 will be reviewed, the applicant will have vaccinations and records. Just stating their point and am open to comments.

Planned activities were cancelled, with no re-scheduling info. Thinking of one annual ceremony held near me at a olde time 4th of July celebration with a group to be sworn in annually. As far as I know, done by a federal judge. Administrative ceremonies sound more like in-office or in-court situations which may doom these group oath events of the past.

Previously scheduled naturalization ceremonies in several upstate New York counties were cancelled by USCIS. Agency says ceremonies conducted by county courts don't meet legal requirements. This includes ceremonies typically held in conjuction with other events, e.g. 4th of July celebrations, at venues within the counties. News article on MSN Central NY state State Attorney General questions the issue Too early to tell if this is only being done in blue state(s).

Would like to update my profile now that NVC has assigned a case number. But I don't know the date NVC Received my info, only the date case # was communicated to me. Is "NVC Receive" checklist item the date I receive case number?

We're pursuing that, but at issue is whether it would be sorted before the DS-160 is submitted with its final answers.If we had any ONE vaccination on a document it would be OK to answer Yes.

Was looking at an example of DS-160 questions before starting my fiance actually filling out the DS-160 online. It appears there is a question: Do you have documentation to establish that you have received vaccinations in accordance with U.S. law? and the fiance presently has no vaccination records, but of course will have some when she exits from her Medical in the future. So is the response to this on the form NO ( provoking possible rejection/flagging at embassy) or YES (when at that point she has no such documentation) ?

I would be happy having my fiance get vaccinated in the Philippines, but do not know if that would change the medical exam into a multiple visit experience in which we should plan more than a few weeks before the embassy interview date. Appreciate any comments from those who have Philippine exam experience where the applicant had vaccines missing from the requirements at the time of their medical.