JoannaV

I can't say it's really hearsay if her loving husband is on here telling us that she admitted to him that she lied on entry. Pretty open and shut to me, but hey...I don't know what the bar is for triggering VJ's ToS.
 
Would be a whole another matter if it was a scorned ex on here telling us that. I have every reason to believe OP's claims, which is why I advised the way I did. As much as I hate the fact I had to provide that advice, given a different situation I'd be more than happy to tell them to AoS otherwise.
 
Personally and as someone who came through Consular Processing, I don't give two damns about the whole 'jumping the queue' thing. It's all artificial rubbish at the end of the day, rules that were in place because they were meant to be cruel by design which is drawn out from a system that had racial quotas and said immigration law that is on the grand scale of things, pretty darn ancient. Those people who AoS aren't making Consular Processing take longer, if anything, it's one less person in the queue for interview at the Consulate.
 
This is why I'd never advocate for AoSing from tourist visas/ESTA to be banned. All it's going to do is clog up the diplomatic missions even further, cause more heartache and separation for couples. I get a lot of people here have the mindset of 'well I suffered through it, so should you'. We should advocate things to be better for the people who follow us in their journeys, not worse, rather than just saying 'rules are rules' and because of that saying that the rules must be made worse.
 
Anyway, before I get reprimanded for going off topic on this thread, I'll leave it at that.

And today we received all the passports in the mail.

And today we received all the passports in the mail.

Finally got my approval today....
 
Applied : 2-Apr (regular)
In process : 6-May (Charleston, SC)
Check cashed : 7-May
Passport shipped : 24-Jun

Wowzers. I applied for my kids' passports (non-expedited) a month ago and was worried that nothing shows up yet and the checks aren't cashed, but seems that is normal right now?? I wish they would at least take my money!!
(Side-note, the UK is throwing out passports like they're hot potatoes, and also - USPS is managing to get UK passport documents across the ocean super fast. 🤷‍♀️)

Thank you for your response! Everyone’s posts have helped us to stay positive. I am with him now, and the ceremony is next week, so proving that we have been together after the ceremony won’t be an issue. I’m actually going to extend my stay for an additional month too. So excited! 

You said a whole lot of nothing. Leaning left doesn't mean socialism. It means doing the things for which Biden was voted. If the US liked Republican ideals, Trump would still be president. ..obviously not. Left policies include immigration reform such as fixing the DACA issue - I'm yet to find a single justification for why someone who was brought here illegally as a 3 month old should be penalized for the wrongdoings of their parent. Only justification is sheer wickedness. Other things that are left leaning is climate change policies etc. I don't see socialism in any of this.
 
..And by the way, there are several socialist elements such as medicaid, medicare, free public education, SNAP etc. that no one seems to have issues about. 

I think the strategy is basically put out the dream list, work your way down. Put in things you claim are important to you that you can trade away in compromise... i.e. "table fodder." I'm just hoping that they didn't go so far as to push just an all out refusal to compromise because the bill is too far outside of the realm of bipartisan. Yes, it will require a 60-vote threshold if any senator submits an intent to filibuster (can anyone still remember the days when every single bill didn't get an intent to filibuster and you could pass things with a simple majority even though the filibuster was something that a senator could do? and now they don't even have to do it, they just have to say they intend to do.) It's not a budget bill, it can't be taken up under existing Reconciliation rules. This is the United States where it is well known that getting a majority of votes does not declare a winner. Good or bad, that's the facts. 
 
There's some really good stuff in this bill. There's some stuff that I think could/should be walked back or killed in committee. Haven't read the bill in its entirety, just a few highlight stories/posts/videos, but so far I haven't heard anyone discuss changes to the Public Charge situation, maybe because it is largely regulatory not legislative. None the less, VERY excited to see a proposal, and maybe even bipartisan work, on providing a path to legal residency. I work with a few people who have known no other home in their memory that my town who have lived for too long without status and fearing deportation. One guy didn't even know he was undocumented until adulthood. Providing stability and welcome to some of these folks will strengthen our communities, make them safer, and give these folks who were not responsible for their relocation to the States an opportunity to truly call this place home. I know that's controversial and I can see where and why some will disagree, but speaking only for myself, I'm excited about that. 

This fall will make my 9th anniversary with my British bride.  It will also make the 3rd anniversary since she returned home to look after her mum.  I think that our VisaJourney started off beautifully and romantically!  It's sorta landed with a thud, 11 years later, since we've first met.   I don't think that her traveling to America for to get married was what she dreamt it would be.  The trip to home to care for Mum has also been a convenient way to STAY at home and not make any concrete plans (with me) to return.  All has been placed back on me to prepare for her to return as I prepared for her initial arrival.  The problem was that during the time of being her, she was never really content, or as she put it, "comfortable" as she was at home.  I'm realistic to realize that we're never as comfortable as we are at home.  Especially if "home" is in another country.  But I also know that it on the part of the K=1 visa holder to realize that they are making a conscious move to a new home and must also make a conscientious effort to make it home.
 
I recently read a post from "Howins/NYC" by a bride who was homesick for the U.K. and not adjusting to American living.  If I didn't know better, I'd believe that it was written by MY wife.  Over the past 8.5 years, the prevailing theme has been, "It's not how it's done in the U.K."  No matter what I've done to make her comfortable, it's never as good as, "how it's done in the U.K." Obviously, nothing will ever by done as it is in the U.K. BECAUSE IT'S THE U.S.A!  Something I don't think immigrants consider when living home.  Whether you're from a third world or first world country - HOME IS HOME and you're going to have to make necessary adjustments to BE married in a new home and not just GET married on a "romantic" K-1 visa.  The parallels between the U.K. & the U.S.A. are more than the differences.  And yes, last year I considered trying to make a go of it in the U.K.  BUT, immigration to the U.K. is filled with red-tape and is expensive.  No, I don't really want to live there because our business sector systems are easier here than in the U.K.  Being an entrepreneur is challenging in the U.K. compared to the U.S., as well as as finding a job.
 
Today, I have sincere regrets after spending the past decade trying to make someone happy (& comfortable) my priority.  Only to have it constantly thrown back at me that, "It's better in the U.K." 
 
 

Everything happens for a reason.
 
I visited my now-husband over 40 times during the period we were “dating”, engaged , early days of marriage whilst waiting for my CR-1 to be complete. Many times I wished I would have just stayed. We even turned around on the way to the airport once when I was due to fly home and called the airline and changed my ticket to have another week because I couldn’t bear to leave. 
 
Adjusting status is very “final”. Once you’ve started the process, you have to continue to the end or find yourself in an even worse situation of having to start the whole visa process again and the possibility of not being able to visit during it (your days of VWP would be over and trying to convince a consular officer that you are not going to overstay on a B-2 when you have done exactly that before on the VWP is going to be a mammoth task). 
 
Also, it leaves you without the option to properly tie up your affairs back home, bid farewell to friends and family, enjoy your last months in your homeland before you leave for good. I am glad that I didn’t listen to my heart when I was visiting and decide to stay. I’m glad I listened to my head. I enjoyed those final months in England. I spent my time traveling around the country, seeing friends and family that I would not be able to see for a long time (someone also for the very last time), went on boozy nights out with friends, ate as much of my favourite foods as I could, and really overdosed myself on all things England. When my visa came through I was ready to leave. House had been sold, belongings packed and shipped, left my job, said goodbye to everyone. I still miss England but I don’t feel I left in the middle of something, if you see what I mean. I had closed the door properly.
 
I understand you can’t wait to be with your fiancé. We all went through that. But you have your whole lives ahead of you. Enjoy these last months at home - you will miss it when you’re gone. 

If you do not include your tax info which is a
transcript or complete tax return (photocopy of every page of your return PLUS W2 or 1099 wage statements) then they won’t even look at your joint sponsors information. They will RFE you with some vague verbiage saying your joint sponsor doesn’t qualify. It’s because you the primary sponsor didn’t get your part correct, so they stop right there.
 
Solution: If you sign the I-864 and submit it before July 15, 2020 then your most recent tax return can be 2018 because 2019 is not due yet. The instructions say if you were not required to file, you must give a reason why not. It can be very simple and stuck in behind your I-864 in lieu of providing a tax return. 
—————-
STATEMENT CONCERNING TAX RETURNS
 
In 2018, I earned $1234.56 which was below the filing threshold of $12,000 for a single tax payer.
I did not file a tax return in 2018.
 
Signature and date 
Typed name
———————-
 
Now without a tax return, whatever you put as your current income needs to be proven with an employer letter or six months of pay stubs (Per the instructions). You can’t just give an income and they have no tax return to reference or the optional employer letter or pay stubs.
 
Doing  that should meet your basic requirements so they will go on to evaluate your joint sponsor’s submission. Don’t forget she has to include proof she is a US citizen or LPR besides her most recent tax return or transcript. 
 
 

It truly is a state specific rental law situation 

Look at the apartment lease ahead of time to see what it says about additional residents.  There should be a standard clause in there.
 
As for your first question:  Avoid doing anything that carries the force of law before you're married.  However, turn into a whirlwind immediately after you're married.  Just about the first thing that I/we did was to draw up Wills, powers of attorney, HIPAA releases, and similar documents.  These are crucial to have in "life," and they're outstanding evidence when she's removing conditions on her green card.

It would have been interesting if he’d come on here with his questions during the process. 
 
“Would the following be enough for evidence of bona fide relationship? 100 paparazzi pictures of us dating, a 12-page spread in Hello from our wedding, the Queen of England congratulating us in her Christmas speech and our faces on t-shirts and plates?”
 
“My USC wife, our son and I have been living in a property owned by my grandmother, renovated by the taxpayer and my wife hasn’t worked since we started dating. How would I report this on the I-864?”
 
”In the past I had some issues with alcohol and cannabis (which is illegal in my homeland) to the point where my father put me in rehab. Will this cause an issue for my medical?”

If you search "k-1 petition expired London" on here you will find lots of results, but suffice it to say that it's not a problem. You just might need to bring a new letter of intent to marry to the interview.

Hi all:
 
I know I typically answer health insurance related questions, and this once again has been a subject that has long fascinated me. I have been on vacation for a while, so I wasn't able to address this, so I'd like to point out some facts when it comes to the law, what this proclamation 'means', what the upcoming public charge rules mean (that I'd already commented on previously), and what options are available for immigrants.
 
As we know the law states the following:
 
The federal and state exchanges are opt in programs. Based on the SCOTUS ruling from long ago, it was made very clear that the government cannot compel someone to purchase a product - in this case health insurance. Because of this there was never a forced mandate. No person, USC or LPR can be forced to purchase health insurance if they do not want it. Again it is not the government's business to prevent us from making stupid choices. So if you don't want insurance you don't have to buy it, as of this date currently. I don't even see HHS making changes in this regard, and I don't see how they can because SCOTUS said they can't.
 
Furthermore according to the law, legal immigrants are still very much eligible to purchase health insurance through the exchanges. They are also eligible to purchase them even if they should have a subsidy. The subsidy, again, according to SCOTUS is not a means tested benefit. It is not a tax or tariff or fine (huge debate about this), it is a tax credit for a subsidy and those not paying into the system pay a penalty at the tax year, which was also effectively non-enforceable via SCOTUS. The person is paying into the system and certain individuals receive a break (just like there are many different types of tax credits) and if they were not paying in by direct purchase, they were paying in via the penalty. Of course the penalty is now removed, by this current administration. They could reinstate it, if they feel with grave concern people are 'scrounging' if they so choose to. Will they? Hmm.
 
The public charge rule, which is due to take effect in mid October( ??) had originally utilized some troublesome wording that would certainly endanger the legality of the public charge rule when it came to written law of the ACA and would almost certainly also run into severe Constitutional issues, especially when it was directed on a subject SCOTUS already ruled on. There were a lot of negative comments to this effect, and I believe that lawsuits would begin in full force. To this effect, these 'changes' were removed. However the new self sufficiency forms did want to know about health insurance - that having health insurance or not would be seen as a positive factor but not necessarily grounds for denial, as well as having private insurance vs those bought on the exchange would also be seen as positive weight.  Whatever that means. No mention however of being denied for buying insurance on the exchange (state or federal) with or without subsidy seemed to be clear to me, because had that language been in there would have certainly clashed with current federal law - which is why, I believe they omitted this.
 
The new proclamation makes the following assertions:
 
The lawful immigrants are more likely to not have health insurance. I have not seen any study to that affect that proves such a wild claim. Since the ACA was put into place coverage of both USCs and LPRs have certainly gone up. And.. furthermore there is no statistical evidence that a person who chooses to go without health insurance places a greater burden on the system. As per before; USCs and LPRs who do not have coverage usually do so for a variety of reasons. One may be that it is far too expensive, they feel they are young and healthy, or as many conservative publications noted the very wealthy and even some middle class chose to go without insurance willingly. They had enough out of pocket to cover the risk apparently, and the penalty was certainly cheaper afterall if you were willing to gamble.
 
Over the years, I have tried to answer health insurance questions to many confused couples that were afraid their status would be in trouble should they try to obtain any of the legal forms of health insurance available to them. This proclamation asserts that the following are acceptable:
 
1)Employer plans.
2)an unsubsidized plan via the exchanges
3) a private plan via a family member or purchased individually.
4) Tricare
5) short term plan. (Amusing as these are NOT ACA compliant plans, worthless junk, and I don't know any that would fit under the year-long term the proclamation asserts it should).
6) catastrophic coverage plan - also not really ACA compliant
7)Medicare (well this certainly would only apply to an LPR that has been here under the terms of 5 years or 40 quarters of work) I'm not sure under which class of visa this would immediately find eligibility under.
8) visitor insurance - also pretty laughable coverage.
 
Now when we think of a K1, it is a non-immigrant visa with dual intent. It is commonly processed through the immigrant unit, and usually leads to the ability to AOS after marriage. The wording does not make clear if this will apply to such unique visas during the consular interview. As before, I felt that it would certainly apply to those AOSing under the new self sufficiency rules, and it would seem that this change would too. We also know that of course, when a K1 is AOSing they are often stuck in a limbo period of being unable to work (and with approval times increasingly slower) for a significant amount of time - so this would negate the choice of an employer plan.
 
I have frequently noted another stumbling block to couples on here, is the lack of an SSN - or encountering a great deal of difficulty at obtaining one. Those of course, who AOSed off the VWP would have another unique stumbling block to obtaining one for some time. And I have seen delays even to those who came on spousal visas. The big problem I'm suggesting here is obvious and we've seen it all the time: couple encounters significant delay to obtaining health insurance CONTRARY to federal law when they do not have an SSN because of system screw up, lack of education on the part of the SSA employee or HR employee, or other such idiocy that is not usually the couple's fault. We know you do not have to have an SSN to obtain health insurance. It states this clearly. That does not mean there are a lot of idiots in charge that think they know better. There are some coupes (K1) unaware that they can obtain an SSN before they miss the window, or they are unable to get insurance within the SQE or OE period. There are also some who end up stuck in state-backlogs to obtain their marriage certificates, thus delaying AOS, and potentially delaying valuable proofs to offer when obtaining insurance.
 
In closing: This is a problematically worded proclamation that will have some legal challenges ahead. You cannot state that it is legal for someone to obtain something by their own free will under one federal law, and then say that it is illegal to obtain under another. You furthermore cannot do something contrary to what SCOTUS already ruled - that the individual mandate is... no individual mandate at all. That the ACA and it's subsidies are not a public means tested benefit. And that you cannot force someone with equal protection under the law to purchase a product against their will. Lawsuits will begin, and I believe there is some teeth to the argument.
 
I have said this before, we who sponsor our loved ones should be self sufficient in taking care of that individual. It is our responsibility as a decent and loving human being to think about what steps need to be made and how we will care for them in a country that is new to them. It is our responsibility to obtain them health insurance, ensure they have documents in order, and help them adjust to life here. Even though I used a cosponsor, I ensured we had savings, and made sure to add my husband to my health insurance as soon as possible. But our own laws state that we are not forced to buy health insurance, and that the government is not responsible for our poor choices. That is the whole argument against 'universal health care' and government involvement in our lives. If a person chooses to use the ACA, they are doing so of their free will, and are paying into the system one way or another, even if it is subsidized. It is rather rare for a subsidy these days anyway. Millions of Americans are subsidized and millions aren't. Still others have no insurance either because of the expense or bad circumstances have befallen them, or they are rich enough not to. I hold no ill will towards them.
 
It is good that a government is perhaps making sponsors aware that they should be taking more responsibility in the care of their loved ones - but when it comes to the language regarding the ACA... they're going to have a problem. Because of confusion and fear, I believe this will lead more immigrants and their families to run away from the exchange that they have a legal right to use. It will endanger lives and place greater financial strains. And it will be challenged in court making this an even greater quandary.

In all honesty, before I moved here, I used to bring a copy of my divorce with me to prove I had sole custody of my kiddo for all travel out of my home country. I was only asked about it once  (out of 5 trips) and they were happy with the paperwork. 

With all the arguing back and forth about which form, please do not miss the important part. They want Tax transcripts. Lack of tax transcripts, is what kicked that whole thing of, not wrong form. So make sure both of your co-sponsors go to https://www.irs.gov/individuals/get-transcript and get transcripts for "Income Verification" for last 3 years. 

I personally think you’re focussing too much on inferring/caring what people on here think of your situation. I don’t think it’s our place to judge you - so I honestly don’t think you need to worry that people are labelling you.
 
You’ve said it’s not the case that you’re ‘a person serial marrying Pakistani people to immigrate’ - but actually, if you marry 3 Pakistani citizens and petition for them to immigrate...then actually, just reading the words on the screen and without placing inference on them, that is what you are. HOWEVER! The important part of this is the intent - WHY you’ve married them - and if the reason ISN’T so they can immigrate and IS because it’s a genuine bona fide relationship, that’s what you’ll need to display, really clearly, in your application. 
 
Please note, I’m not saying your relationship isn’t completely genuine - I have zero reason to believe it’s not - but the embassy will need a lot of convincing, because they will have to get over that first hurdle, that on paper this is the third time, from the same country. Good luck - I hope you’ll be able to gather all the evidence and that everything works out 🙏.

Yes he will need to file petitions for the children too.
You will be sending your I-130s to London, right?
He needs to back-file US taxes if he hasn't been filing. (You could do that after filing the petition though.)
Another thing to check on: did he register for Selective Service?

Even within that, I know multiple people who referred to their girlfriends as "wifey".

Even within that, I know multiple people who referred to their girlfriends as "wifey".

Can vote for 15 years after you leave (including after you become a USC), in national and EU elections but not local.
I've always used my father as a proxy, because I wouldn't want to trust the timing of a postal vote...

That's in reference to getting settled status after 5 years of living in the UK, not getting the initial visa to live there for those 5 years. Though may apply for that too.
But, on another section it says " If you’re eligible to apply as a partner, you must do that instead of applying as a parent. " 😞

I'm going to add something others (or I missed it) did not mention. They got the immigration attorney advice covered, but I want to mention have a divorce attorney look over your situation. Not as how to divorce but how to get the courts in DC to make a clear and indisputable decision on whether that marriage is invalid. I want to say they are the ones better equipped on how to deal with marriages and everything with them rather than an immigration attorney. So far form what you posted from those attorney's I don't trust their advice. It will not hurt to get another consult with someone who knows this stuff. Immigration attorneys may have no clue on things about a marriage certificate.