jeffreyhy

Except that he is considering submitting his petition as being resident in Sweden.

With DCF gone, filing the petition with the Chicago lockbox is no longer an indication that the petitioner is resident and domiciled in the USA.

Regards, JEff

josda

I have no idea how they look at it. But on the affidavit of support, I presume there will be information about his current work. So that should take care of it if necessary.

Another question about address history on G-325--should I put down temporary addresses as well? That would include my husband's current US one, and another one of mine.

Thanks

ian-mstm

Your premise is faulty. You're assuming that information on one form is cross referenced to information on another form. That might happen... but it might not.

Each form should be completed as though it was the only form that will be seen.


If it asks where he's living now or has lived previously, then yes... put it down. That it may be temporary is irrelevant.

Ian

jeffreyhy

If he lived there, yes. "permanent" v temporary is not the same thing as live v visit, and it does seem that your husband is currently living in the USA not visiting.

The word permanent is in quotes not because it is a quote but because few things are really permanent. Most things are temporary, even if very long in duration. But more important than the issue of semantics, the G-325A as well as most other forms do not touch on permanent v temporary - it's the applicants who complicate things by raising that issue.

Regards, JEff

Noorah101

Thanks JEff. I didn't realize that.

But now I'm confused. So what happens in this case? The USC is resident in Sweden, and files the I-130 to the Chicago lockbox. It gets approved, and then what? USCIS sends the case directly to the IV unit at the US Embassy in Sweden, and then it processes like a DCF case anyway? (i.e., no NVC stage?)

Rene

jeffreyhy

USCIS Service Centers send approved petitions to the NVC.

Regards, JEff

josda

We're going to put down our Swedish address so that all paperwork is sent here. My husband is looking for work all over the country and may leave his current place in a day's notice.

Consular processing goes through NVC, and ends up at the Stockholm Embassy for the interview and final decision.

As for establishing residency, most countries would count that as anything more than 6 months out of the year.

Noorah101

That's what I thought. So this case will progress as though the USC is domiciled in the USA. NVC will collect the civil documents and the I-864, right?

Since NVC will be collecting the I-864 (for which the USC is supposed to be either be domiciled in the USA or show intent to domicile), at which point is the "intent to domicile" proof needed? Do they send that in with the I-864 to NVC? Or does NVC not really care, and that proof goes with the intending immigrant to the visa interview?

Rene

josda

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I asked how intent of setting up residence in the United States is demonstrated on the affidavit of support, as Jeff noted that this form is used partly for that purpose (if I understood correctly).
I thought this one form asks for both proof of intent to domicile *and* proof of income.

I'll just have a look I suppose.

Noorah101

If it's all done by email, or online, that's fine. But I don't think NVC will mail actual documents overseas.

Rene

josda

So, it seems that I-864 can be used either as proof of current US income or intent to set up residence, in which case a co-sponsor is needed. This demonstrating of intent to domicile seems not apply to us then.

Noorah101

The USC who fills out the I-864 is supposed to be domiciled in the USA. If he is, then no proof is necessary. If he is not, sometimes the USC is allowed to show intent to domicile in the USA, before he actually returns to live in the USA.

This is also what's confusing me about your case. The I-130 was filed to the USA (since you can't file it overseas). However, it seems like the rest of your case is supposed to go as if it were DCF (according to you, where you say the USC is not living in the USA). But, I-130s that are filed in the USA do not follow the same path as ones filed at a field office abroad.

Normally, for a USC living abroad, who has not yet returned to the USA by the time the visa interview happens, the applicant is allowed to bring proof of the USC's intent to domicile, to the visa interview. That is also when the I-864 will be handed over.

But in your case, since the I-130 was filed in the USA, NVC will collect the I-864 (you won't be taking it to the interview). So I am not sure when the proof if intent to domicile will be required....with the I-864 when you send it to NVC, or at the visa interview. I don't know.

Rene

Noorah101

No, the I-864 is ONLY used to show that the USC earns enough to support the intending immigrant. The I-864 does not prove domicile in the USA.

A joint sponsor will only be needed if the USC does not earn enough income or otherwise meet the financial requirements on the I-864.

If, by the time of your visa interview, your husband is living in the USA, no intent to domicile proof will be required. If, by the time of your visa interview, your husband is living in Sweden, I would think intent to domicile proof would be needed.

Rene

jeffreyhy

Correct. The NVC collects the document, reviewing them only to the extent of determining that required documents have been submitted. The consular officers determine if the documents meet the needs of the case.

I don't know what an NVC reviewer's checklist looks like for I-864, but the I-864 instructions do say that if the sponsor is required to include evidence of domicile, or intent to establish domicile, if their mailing address or current place of residence is outside the USA.

Regards, JEff

josda

So all forms after the I-130 can be filed online? That's definitely how we'll do it since it speeds things up. I can't imagine that NVC wouldn't mail documents overseas however, for those USCs who are actually still living abroad. I know a US bank account is required for all payments, so perhaps this is true.

It all keeps me wondering whether the US is actively trying to discourage immediate relatives from immigrating (well, at least the less financially endowed)? It's one thing to live apart for a long time as newly weds, but entirely different when a family has to support two separate households for up to 10 months. I do hope they reinstate the option to do DCF!