Avance Parole - Am I worrying my wife needlessly?

[Mike B. 231]

Vanessa and Jim are correct. A K-1 is authorized to remain in the US for 90 days. To complete the condition of the K-1 that will allow them to apply for permission to remain in the US based on the K-1 visa entry being used to marry a US citizen, the beneficiary must marry within those 90 days. Marriage does not mean that they are now legally present within the US after the expiry of the I-94. It means that they are now allowed to apply for permission to remain in the US based upon fulfilling the requirements of the K-1 visa. Once the I-94 expires, whether the couple is married or not, the beneficiary starts to accumulate out of status days.

When the AOS is approved, the out of status days are forgiven, but until that time, if the beneficiary accumulates 180 days or more of unauthorized time in the US they are subject to a ban when they try to re-enter the US. The K-1 visa is only permission to enter the US, get married and apply to remain in the US, it is not permission to remain in the US because of marriage. That is a second step.

In this particular case, however, 26 days should not cause any problem at all. The I-131 instructions clearly point to the 180 out of status days. You have applied for the I-485, you have the I-131 in hand, so while the border guards have the authority to deny entry to anyone who is not a US citizen, there is no real reason for them to deny entry to your wife on return from a visit.

Good luck.

Yeah, but if I understand correctly they did marry within 90 days of entering the United States. In fact, they married only 7 days after entrance. So on what days were they here unlawfully? Seems like none, unless I'm reading it totally incorrectly.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Mike B.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

It's not the marriage that determines whether or not one is out of status - it is the time between the expiry date on the I-94 and the receipt of the I-485 application. If there is an overlap and no time in between the end of the I-94 and the receipt of the I-485, then there is no out of status days. If there is a time between when the I-94 expires and the I-485 is accepted, those are considered out of status days. The marriage only means that they have satisfied the criteria of the K-1 visa and are therefore allowed to use that as the grounds for filing to adjust status. If they did not satisfy the K-1 requirement to marry within 90 days, then they would not be allowed to use the K-1 status to adjust to a permanent resident. The sponsor would have to file a new petition - an I-130 for a family member - along with the I-485 and the I-485 would be based upon the I-130 and not the I-129f petition.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Kathryn41

[Mike B. 231]

It's not the marriage that determines whether or not one is out of status - it is the time between the expiry date on the I-94 and the receipt of the I-485 application. If there is an overlap and no time in between the end of the I-94 and the receipt of the I-485, then there is no out of status days. If there is a time between when the I-94 expires and the I-485 is accepted, those are considered out of status days. The marriage only means that they have satisfied the criteria of the K-1 visa and are therefore allowed to use that as the grounds for filing to adjust status. If they did not satisfy the K-1 requirement to marry within 90 days, then they would not be allowed to use the K-1 status to adjust to a permanent resident. The sponsor would have to file a new petition - an I-130 for a family member - along with the I-485 and the I-485 would be based upon the I-130 and not the I-129f petition.

It's been nearly two years since I regularly read these fora. Back then this was the subject of absolutely tremendous amounts of debate. Maybe people were of the opinion that you could actually legally just stay indefinitely without adjusting status due to a gap in the law, although doing so would be stupid. As I recall, this argument was largely focused on the fact that the INA actually excludes aliens "unlawfully present in the United States for a period of more than 180 days." The argument was that people who did not adjust status in time may not have had a status, but they were not unlawfully present. It actually was beneficial for some people to delay adjusting for status because they lost their jobs in the interim between getting the visa and getting married, and thus no longer could satisfy the financial requirements until they got hired somewhere else.

As I said, I'm totally ignorant as to whether or not this debate has now been settled and it is now certain that you are absolutely required to file for AOS within 90 days. Is it?

Thanks for the clarification,

Mike

[Kathryn41 3,205]

You are not required to file for AOS at any time. The K-1 allows you to file for AOS based upon the entry to the US as a fiancee of a US citizen and marriage to the same citizen within 90 days. You are not required to file for AOS within those same 90 days. The 'status' of someone who enters on a K-1 visa is determined by the I-94. That is an exit/entry visa and it determines the length of time someone is legally authorized to stay in the US. The visa allows the entry. The I-94 allows the stay. For example, some one can have a visitor visa valid for 10 years. That doesn't mean that they are allowed to remain in the US for 10 years. It means that they are allowed to apply to enter the US during those 10 years, and then the border determines how long they are able to stay and states that time on the I-94 or I-94W that is stapled into their passport. The same thing with the K-1, except that the K-1 visa is only good for one entry and legislation has determined that the length of time within the US is set at 90 days in order to comply with the intentions of the visa.

So, that means the status is only valid for 90 days unless something else happens in which to change that status. In the case of a K-1, what happens is that the beneficiary applies to become a permanent resident as they are allowed to do so under the terms of the K-1 visa. The timing of that application can either be while they are still within the 90 day period of authorized stay as indicated on the I-94 -or it can be after the I-94 expires. Because they fulfilled the terms of the visa, they are allowed to use the visa to apply for the AOS citing that visa as their permission. If they did not get married within the 90 days they would not be able to apply for AOS under the terms of the K-1. They would need a whole new petition.

Their legal 'status' in the US is still determined by the I-94. When it expires, so does their status. They begin to accrue 'out of status' days. They are still eligible to file for AOS based upon the K-1 entry and satisfying the K-1 visa, but until they do they have no legal status in the US. They entered legally, but they have overstayed their authorized period of stay. When they file for the AOS and it is accepted, their status then changes back into an authorized stay until there is a decision made on their I-485 application. Any days between the expiry of the I-94 and the acceptance of the I-485 are considered 'out of status' days. While they remain in the US this is not generally a problem. If they leave the US and wish to return, it may be a problem because US legislation states that more than 180 days of out of legal immigration status in the US will trigger an automatic ban if the person leaves the US and wishes to return on an Advance Parole document. When the AOS is approved any out of status days and any unauthorized work are automatically 'forgiven' so it becomes a moot point.

People generally confuse the K-1 visa status and its requirements with the I-94 document. The K-1 visa only authorizes an entry with certain requirements and allows for certain future actions based upon fulfilling those requirements. It does not grant the right to live in the US nor does it in and of itself grant any status in the US. The only status granted is through the I-94 which codifies the 90 days allowed in the US in which to satisfy the requirements of the K-1. Further immigration benefits - permission to remain in the US legally - need a separate application - the I-485 - although USCIS states one does not have to file for that benefit. They just need to be willing to accept the consequences of not filing - one of which is collecting out of status days; another of which is they can be detained by USCIS officials and either required to apply for AOS right away or be deported.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Kathryn41

[Mike B. 231]

You are not required to file for AOS at any time. The K-1 allows you to file for AOS based upon the entry to the US as a fiancee of a US citizen and marriage to the same citizen within 90 days. You are not required to file for AOS within those same 90 days. The 'status' of someone who enters on a K-1 visa is determined by the I-94. That is an exit/entry visa and it determines the length of time someone is legally authorized to stay in the US. The visa allows the entry. The I-94 allows the stay. For example, some one can have a visitor visa valid for 10 years. That doesn't mean that they are allowed to remain in the US for 10 years. It means that they are allowed to apply to enter the US during those 10 years, and then the border determines how long they are able to stay and states that time on the I-94 or I-94W that is stapled into their passport. The same thing with the K-1, except that the K-1 visa is only good for one entry and legislation has determined that the length of time within the US is set at 90 days in order to comply with the intentions of the visa.

So, that means the status is only valid for 90 days unless something else happens in which to change that status. In the case of a K-1, what happens is that the beneficiary applies to become a permanent resident as they are allowed to do so under the terms of the K-1 visa. The timing of that application can either be while they are still within the 90 day period of authorized stay as indicated on the I-94 -or it can be after the I-94 expires. Because they fulfilled the terms of the visa, they are allowed to use the visa to apply for the AOS citing that visa as their permission. If they did not get married within the 90 days they would not be able to apply for AOS under the terms of the K-1. They would need a whole new petition.

Their legal 'status' in the US is still determined by the I-94. When it expires, so does their status. They begin to accrue 'out of status' days. They are still eligible to file for AOS based upon the K-1 entry and satisfying the K-1 visa, but until they do they have no legal status in the US. They entered legally, but they have overstayed their authorized period of stay. When they file for the AOS and it is accepted, their status then changes back into an authorized stay until there is a decision made on their I-485 application. Any days between the expiry of the I-94 and the acceptance of the I-485 are considered 'out of status' days. While they remain in the US this is not generally a problem. If they leave the US and wish to return, it may be a problem because US legislation states that more than 180 days of out of legal immigration status in the US will trigger an automatic ban if the person leaves the US and wishes to return on an Advance Parole document. When the AOS is approved any out of status days and any unauthorized work are automatically 'forgiven' so it becomes a moot point.

People generally confuse the K-1 visa status and its requirements with the I-94 document. The K-1 visa only authorizes an entry with certain requirements and allows for certain future actions based upon fulfilling those requirements. It does not grant the right to live in the US nor does it in and of itself grant any status in the US. The only status granted is through the I-94 which codifies the 90 days allowed in the US in which to satisfy the requirements of the K-1. Further immigration benefits - permission to remain in the US legally - need a separate application - the I-485 - although USCIS states one does not have to file for that benefit. They just need to be willing to accept the consequences of not filing - one of which is collecting out of status days; another of which is they can be detained by USCIS officials and either required to apply for AOS right away or be deported.

I think we are talking past one another. I fully understand the difference between K-1 and I-94. What I am saying (and not myself advocating) is this:

There is (or at least was) a serious argument that the moment you married within 90 days of the issuance of the I-94, you satisfied all of your legal obligations, whether or not you applied for AOS. Thus, even if you went years without applying for AOS, while you may not have status, you are not "unlawfully present in the United States," because no further permission for you to be in the United States was needed. This, it was argued, was certainly a strange gap in the law, but the law sometimes does have gaps. Thus, the argument went, if you didn't apply for AOS for a decade after your I-94 expired, and then suddenly decided to apply for it, the government would indeed process it as if you had applied before your I-94 expired.

The crux of the argument, as I recall, basically hinged on the idea that you are factually incorrect when you say that the law prohibits people who don't have status for 180 days or more from entering or remaining in the United States. The law actually says, the argument went, that you are prohibited from entering the United States if you have been unlawfully present (not "without status") in the United States for 180 days or more. People who marry within 90 days and don't file for AOS for a decade are unlawfully present in the United States for exactly zero days because they satisfied the terms of their I-94 and did not neglect to take any action that was statutorily required of them.

Now, as I said, I am only reciting this argument. It could have well been settled that it was incorrect. Also, I think that there has always been a general acknowledgement that pinning your entire life in the United States and your future with the person who you love and want to live the rest of your days with on this one iffy argument is absolutely mindblowingly stupid and that everyone should file for AOS before their I-94 expires if they can. But, in certain cases when it is not possible for file for AOS before the I-94 expires, this argument said, you're still in the clear, because you are not unlawfully present, and that's all that matters at the end of the day.

Not sure if that makes any sense.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I think we are talking past one another. I fully understand the difference between K-1 and I-94. What I am saying (and not myself advocating) is this:

There is (or at least was) a serious argument that the moment you married within 90 days of the issuance of the I-94, you satisfied all of your legal obligations, whether or not you applied for AOS. Thus, even if you went years without applying for AOS, while you may not have status, you are not "unlawfully present in the United States," because no further permission for you to be in the United States was needed. This, it was argued, was certainly a strange gap in the law, but the law sometimes does have gaps. Thus, the argument went, if you didn't apply for AOS for a decade after your I-94 expired, and then suddenly decided to apply for it, the government would indeed process it as if you had applied before your I-94 expired.

The crux of the argument, as I recall, basically hinged on the idea that you are factually incorrect when you say that the law prohibits people who don't have status for 180 days or more from entering or remaining in the United States. The law actually says, the argument went, that you are prohibited from entering the United States if you have been unlawfully present (not "without status") in the United States for 180 days or more. People who marry within 90 days and don't file for AOS for a decade are unlawfully present in the United States for exactly zero days because they satisfied the terms of their I-94 and did not neglect to take any action that was statutorily required of them.

Now, as I said, I am only reciting this argument. It could have well been settled that it was incorrect. Also, I think that there has always been a general acknowledgement that pinning your entire life in the United States and your future with the person who you love and want to live the rest of your days with on this one iffy argument is absolutely mindblowingly stupid and that everyone should file for AOS before their I-94 expires if they can. But, in certain cases when it is not possible for file for AOS before the I-94 expires, this argument said, you're still in the clear, because you are not unlawfully present, and that's all that matters at the end of the day.

Not sure if that makes any sense.

It does. The argument is resolved.

The i-94 controls your status. You are unlawfully present or rather "out of status" once your i-94 expires. You are able to adjust status after the I-94 expires without issue. If you file after 2 years you are better off filing an I-130 to get the 10 year card because a K1 needs to get a 2 year card first (regardless of length of marriage) and the I-130 means you adjust based on that and the 2 years+ of marriage permits you to get a 10 year card.

If, while your I-94 is expired and before you file for AOS you run into ICE officers they CAN detain you, put you in immigration jail pending a hearing before an immigration judge (this has happened to a few people). The judge will throw the case out and tell you to AOS immediately. Though by their unlawful presence they are deportable, because they are married to a USC they are given the chance to first attempt to AOS (this is true of anyone, not just K1's).

A K1 isn't protected from unlawful presence. The K1 visa is a method of entering the US, that is it. The K1 dies on entry and their status is then controlled by their I-94. In order to AOS based on the k1 they need to marry in the 90 days. In the event they DON'T marry in the 90 days they can still AOS but they need to file an I-130. Marrying in the 90 days means they AOS based on the K1 so no need to file the I-130 BUT as I said above AOSing based on the K1 requires a 2 year card first so if AOSing after 2 years marriage filing the I-130 is the best way to go.

The 180 days comes into play for people who file for AP and think just because it's been approved that they can use it. If they've been out of status for 180 days and leave the country they will incur a ban depending on their length of time out and will not be allowed back in. Thought they haven't abandoned their status (as it would be if they left before getting AP), because of the ban due to unlawful presence they can't get back in to complete it so they're basically dead in the water anyway.

Does all that make sense and resolve the argument for you?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I think we are talking past one another. I fully understand the difference between K-1 and I-94. What I am saying (and not myself advocating) is this:

There is (or at least was) a serious argument that the moment you married within 90 days of the issuance of the I-94, you satisfied all of your legal obligations, whether or not you applied for AOS. Thus, even if you went years without applying for AOS, while you may not have status, you are not "unlawfully present in the United States," because no further permission for you to be in the United States was needed. This, it was argued, was certainly a strange gap in the law, but the law sometimes does have gaps. Thus, the argument went, if you didn't apply for AOS for a decade after your I-94 expired, and then suddenly decided to apply for it, the government would indeed process it as if you had applied before your I-94 expired.

The crux of the argument, as I recall, basically hinged on the idea that you are factually incorrect when you say that the law prohibits people who don't have status for 180 days or more from entering or remaining in the United States. The law actually says, the argument went, that you are prohibited from entering the United States if you have been unlawfully present (not "without status") in the United States for 180 days or more. People who marry within 90 days and don't file for AOS for a decade are unlawfully present in the United States for exactly zero days because they satisfied the terms of their I-94 and did not neglect to take any action that was statutorily required of them.

Now, as I said, I am only reciting this argument. It could have well been settled that it was incorrect. Also, I think that there has always been a general acknowledgement that pinning your entire life in the United States and your future with the person who you love and want to live the rest of your days with on this one iffy argument is absolutely mindblowingly stupid and that everyone should file for AOS before their I-94 expires if they can. But, in certain cases when it is not possible for file for AOS before the I-94 expires, this argument said, you're still in the clear, because you are not unlawfully present, and that's all that matters at the end of the day.

Not sure if that makes any sense.

This is not correct. Any alien who is present in the United States without authorization is "unlawfully present", and is accumulating unlawful presence. A person who enters with a K1 visa is granted 90 days authorization to be present in the United States. If they are still in the United States 91 days later, and have not obtained further permission to remain in the United States, then they are unlawfully present. Whether or not they married in the interim is not relevant.

A person who has filed an application for adjustment of status is granted a period of authorized stay while their adjustment of status application is being adjudicated. They stop accumulating unlawful presence on the day their AOS application is accepted by USCIS (the date on the NOA1). A K1 who is out of status remains eligible to apply for adjustment of status because INA 245(c)(2) provides a specific exception for immediate relatives of US citizens and special immigrants defined in sections 101(a)(27)(H), (I), (J), and (K) (which includes K1's).

I've heard this argument before about the difference between "out of status" and "unlawfully present", and it's hogwash. The only difference between a K1 who married within 90 days and one who did not is that the K1 who married within 90 days is eligible to adjust status based on the I-129F petition, while the K1 who did not marry is not. Their eligibility to adjust status grants some protection from removal, but not because they've been granted any particular "limbo" status. It's because DHS has a policy not to start removal proceedings against someone who is clearly eligible to adjust status. This policy would be totally unnecessary if a K1 who married was lawfully present because they'd have no grounds to remove them.

The only ambiguity in the law is that it sets a time limit for a K1 to marry in order to secure their eligibility to adjust status based on the I-129F petition, but it doesn't set a time limit for them to apply for adjustment of status. If they married within 90 days then they remain eligible to adjust status as long as they remain married to the petitioner. In the 9th Circuit Court district they even have a shot at adjustment of status after they've divorced, but that's a whole 'nother story.

[Fifth Echelon 6]

For the benefit of the OP, perhaps we should clarify the terms 'unlawful presense' and 'out of status', as these seem to have been used interchangeably here.

Unlawful presense is defined as any stay beyond the end date of your I-94. If this exceeds 180 days or 1 year, it results in a 3 or 10 year ban.

Out of status means that you may be lawfully present (your I-94 may not be past expiry), but you are not complying with the terms of your visa/status. For example, an H-1B workervwho is no longer employed, but is still present on US soil and the I-94 is still valid, is NOT unlawfully present, but IS out of status. Out of status presense does NOT result in automatic bans, but CAN still get you in trouble with ICE.

Now, there is some debate on whether staying beyond the end date of a K-1 I-94 without filing for AOS represents unlawful presense, even if the marriage occured prior to the expiry date (since this is the only clearly defined requirement). This is imilar to the debate on whether F-1 students with D/S on their I-94s have a hard date at which they begin accruing unlawful presense, and IOs have stated that in many such cases they actually do not accrue any unlawful presense, just out of status days.

My opinion on this is that even though there is a gap in the law here, one should be conservative and assume that unlawful presense has been accrued. That being said, 26 days (and I think this should be less given the timeline stated) is not a hugely significant amount, and you should be good to go. The chances of running into issues at re-entry are only marginally higher than if there were no unlawful presense.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

For the benefit of the OP, perhaps we should clarify the terms 'unlawful presense' and 'out of status', as these seem to have been used interchangeably here.

Unlawful presense is defined as any stay beyond the end date of your I-94. If this exceeds 180 days or 1 year, it results in a 3 or 10 year ban.

Out of status means that you may be lawfully present (your I-94 may not be past expiry), but you are not complying with the terms of your visa/status. For example, an H-1B workervwho is no longer employed, but is still present on US soil and the I-94 is still valid, is NOT unlawfully present, but IS out of status. Out of status presense does NOT result in automatic bans, but CAN still get you in trouble with ICE.

Now, there is some debate on whether staying beyond the end date of a K-1 I-94 without filing for AOS represents unlawful presense, even if the marriage occured prior to the expiry date (since this is the only clearly defined requirement). This is imilar to the debate on whether F-1 students with D/S on their I-94s have a hard date at which they begin accruing unlawful presense, and IOs have stated that in many such cases they actually do not accrue any unlawful presense, just out of status days.

You're right and you're wrong. Out-of-status and unlawful presence CAN mean the same thing, especially in the case of a k1 and i-94. You're right because you've defined them both correctly, but WRONG because you failed to ALSO define out-of-status being "lack of status" which is exactly what happens when your I-94 expires. http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-Articles/?a=1484&z=46 (you'll see the example for out-of-status is an expired I-94).

There is no debate on whether staying beyond the K1 I-94 is unlawful presence, because it IS. The K1 is a visa to enter the US, that's it. It's only restriction is you must marry the K1 petitioner. The 90 days thing is so you can AOS based on the I-129F (rather than having to file and pay for an I-130).

[sun flower 3]

Probably this sounds like a "very controlling of the situation" person" but I would wait untill I will have in hand the GC to travel overeas, after an out of status, ilegal or whatever you want to call period of time. I know of a person who has been out of status (for a shorter period of time as 2 months) after traveled out of USA and reenter with an AP, she was notified by Immigration that they have started the process of deportation. So she has to hire an attorney to take her case. But of course the decision is yours.

[Darnell 8,478]

so, what was the answer, after talking with a CBP supervisor, face to face, at a CBP Secondary Inspection / Deferred Inspection office?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Probably this sounds like a "very controlling of the situation" person" but I would wait untill I will have in hand the GC to travel overeas, after an out of status, ilegal or whatever you want to call period of time. I know of a person who has been out of status (for a shorter period of time as 2 months) after traveled out of USA and reenter with an AP, she was notified by Immigration that they have started the process of deportation. So she has to hire an attorney to take her case. But of course the decision is yours.

This could not have been a simple K1 case. I have never ever heard of them starting removal proceedings against a K1 simply because they'd overstayed by a couple of months. Every year there are thousands of K1's who file for adjustment of status after their I-94's have expired, and I have never once heard of one who was told by an immigration officer that they'd already started removal proceedings against them. There's got to be a lot more to this story than you're sharing here.

[Fifth Echelon 6]

You're right and you're wrong. Out-of-status and unlawful presence CAN mean the same thing, especially in the case of a k1 and i-94. You're right because you've defined them both correctly, but WRONG because you failed to ALSO define out-of-status being "lack of status" which is exactly what happens when your I-94 expires. http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-Articles/?a=1484&z=46 (you'll see the example for out-of-status is an expired I-94).

Actually I was not wrong: by overstaying your I-94, you are automatically in violation of the terms of your visa/status - which is how I defined out of status. I simply did not explicitly point out that one can be out of status while being unlawfully present, although I did say that you 'may' be lawfully present, which was a vague statement and could have been misinterpreted to mean that one HAD to be lawfully present to be out of status. It is of course true that in almost every case, you WILL be out of status if you are unlawfully present.

My reason for defining unlawful presence was that a number of posters worry about 3 or 10 year bans, and it should be clear that these automatic bans are based on accrued unlawful presence days, not out of status bans. Therefore, if you've waited more than 180 days past your K-1 I-94 expiry to file for AOS, you really do not want to travel internationally until you have that GC in hand.

[Yagisama 93]

You know, I have an infopass appointment tomorrow morning regarding this issue and I'm not even sure what I'm going to ask them.

According to the I-131 instructions, we are in the clear, since the number of days of unlawful presence is much less than 180 days.

So what am I going to say? There is this website, where this one guy says that he has a friend whose neighbor knows somebody who was just 2 weeks late to apply for AOS and he got sent to immigration jail and faced deportation? It's like some of the old INS boogieman stories.

Bah. Honestly, this wouldn't even have been an issue for me at all if it wasn't for this forum and some of the crazy stories here.

Still, it might be interesting to go through an infopass appointment. I was going to also ask about our EAD/AP but those were approved yesterday.

[Yagisama 93]

Well, we went to the infopass this morning.

The short story of it, we're going to Tokyo for New Year!

The long story....well, it was an interesting experience.

Went to downtown LA about 45 minutes before appointment. We needed all those extra minutes since the place was so packed. We live just 20 minutes and its not like we haven't gone there before but I guess I had never seen that particular area in rush hour traffic.

Anyhow, barely made our appointment time only to be greeted by a long line. We waited and finally got in and went through the metal detectors. Then we stood in another line and got a number.

We waited about 30 minutes for our number to be called. So went to the window and this super rude lady just starred at us. I assumed she would ask for some paperwork. So I started talking about advance parole this, and 180 days that. Then she stopped me and told me to go to the adjacent window.

Someone was already there but the nice guy told me to wait after him. He checked his paperwork (sounded like EAD) and then it was our turn.

I had made an outline of our timeline in big font and even wrote an outline of our questions. I felt silly just to go there like an idiot to ask "26 < 180 so we good right?" so I had some other simple questions as filler.

He looked at my timeline and said that the unlawful days stop accruing once the I-485 is received and not the NOA date. Sounds good, a few less unlawful days.

Then I showed him the I-131 instructions with the 180 days stuff highlighted. As expected he basically said in a nice way that 20 something is less than 180 so if there's no other unlawful days, we're good to go.

I asked the other stuff at that point. The AP is in her married name but her passport is in her maiden name. As expected a copy of marriage certificate would suffice.

I also asked what if we get approval for the green card before the trip and would this invalidate the AP. As expected he said yes. I told him what would our course of action be at that point, and specifically if we could make an infopass appointment to get an I551 stamp. He said yes. Actually he brought up the stamp before I could completely ask the question.

So pretty much what I expected. Nothing is certain and heck the plane might fall off the sky, but nothing is getting in the way of our visit to Tokyo for New Year!!

Good thing I bought the tickets two months ago.