meauxna

heheh...isn't that where Michael moved to?

Taterbug

Yes Meauxna, That is where Michael(AKA Depo Man) reared his ugly little head!! LOL

Just Jenney

Gee, you certainly don't sound like you aren't trying to find a way to twist the law to your advantage:

When you said 'you must be living with your spouse on the day of the oath ceremony', what if she e.g. stays in our house on the night of that day? Technically, she would be living with me then 'on the day', and I wouldnt be lying or anything..

"'have been living' can refer to the current/past when she still is living with me as well the time when she moves back in."

"And, what if she officially never changes the address with her employer, all the bills have both our names on it, there is plenty of activity on the joint checking etc etc at the day of the interview and the day of the oath etc?"

This last comment in particular shows a certain intent to either lie by omission and/or misrepresent the facts so they work to your advantage, which contradicts what you're saying now.

What I find sad is that you seem more interested in ensuring that your naturalization based on marriage goes through without a hitch than you are in ensuring your marriage stays intact. That may not be your actual priority, but your comments indicate otherwise.

I realize that you didn't want any "personal judgements or opinions" but that just goes with the territory of posting on a public forum. Sorry.

~ Jenney

Anon

karlheinz wrote:
    >
    > I will certainly NOT LIE under oath and doom my visa, that is TOTALLY
    > out of the question.

Really? So, you aren't planning to have her spend the night so you can
"honestly" tell them that you are living together? or.. Are you saying
that unless ask you if you are living together, you are not going to
tell them that you are no longer living together?

    >
    > You guys need to chill out and hold back your judgement and opinions,

Right.. And you will not judge us? :)

    > as I am certainly going through enough crap right now with a woman I
    > thought loves me (and who told me so as well,

People often say "I love you" and don't mean it. You know this, right?

although she had other
    > thoughts at the time) and I dont need any sort of sh*t from people who
    > think they are above everything else.

We don't think we are above everything. We feel we have a right to
comment based on information you have provided. You seemed to indicate
that you were going to pretend to USCIS that you are still living
together, even if you are not living together at the time of the
interview... Based on the details as provided by you, what SHOULD we think?

Karlheinz

As I stated:

    > > All I wanted to know was if my citizenship based on marriage would be
    > > 'doomed' if shed move out for a little while, thinks about it and then
    > > moves back in with me. OF COURSE, in case we separate for good,
    > > divorce or havent worked our issues out by the time of the interview,
    > > I will NOT pursue the naturalization at this time, but wait 2 more
    > > years.

Now sure how this came to be a forum to discuss marital issues. Lets
just stick to the visa questions, shall we?

thanks
kh.

Jenney & Mark <member2595@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<35$263270
[email protected]>...
    > What I find sad is that you seem more interested in ensuring that your
    > naturalization based on marriage goes through without a hitch than you
    > are in ensuring your marriage stays intact. That may not be your actual
    > priority, but your comments indicate otherwise.

Just Jenney

Funny how you ignored the rest of my post which had nothing to do with discussing your marital issues and everything to do with your naturalization questions.

~ Jenney

USA & Pakistan

This is a forum for MARRIAGE-BASED visas. So Marital issues - such as the status of the marriage: engaged, married, seperated, divorced, living together or not, etc... have a lot to do with MARRIAGE-BASED visas and are appropriate topics for this forum.

So take what you want and leave the rest. Good luck to you. I hope it works out well for both you and your wife - however that may be.

Marnee

Karlheinz

Jenney & Mark <member2595@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected] om>...
    > Funny how you ignored the rest of my post which had nothing to do with
    > discussing your marital issues and everything to do with your
    > naturalization questions.
    >
    > ~ Jenney

All I asked for were answers to my questions, Jenney. I am not in
court here, nor are you the ones to judge on how I contradicted
myself. No need to restate my questions I asked and then comment with
'see how you asked this, see how you asked that, that is proof for
your intentions'. May want to consider watching less CourtTV etc.

BTW, this is a forum for marriage-based VISAS. Hence not a forum to
judge ones intentions/priorities on his/her marriage, but to discuss
questions related to marriage-based VISAS.

And I already explained myself more than sufficiently. My wife is not
sure at this point if she wants to live with me or not and needs some
time to figure it out. Thats why she plans on moving out for maybe 3
months. There is a good chance that she will move back in after that
time. I am of course working with her to keep this marriage alive (no,
not because of my visa, I came to the US to live with her initially, I
could find good jobs outside of the US as well). I was wondering at
what point the citizenship application would be 'doomed'. Thats why I
asked questions related to the timing of her moving back in. As far as
moving in on the evening before the interview: I wasnt meaning 'what
if she stays for one night', but 'what if she happens to move in and
then stays for good'.

If I would have known that I only would receive about 1 or 2 helpful
answers out of 15 or so (and the rest just being useless comments), I
would of course never posed this problem in this forum in the first
place.

I had worked a lot with these forums in the past and always had a
positive experience (as in getting useful replies to my questions). I
guess nowadays the attitude seems to be that if you dont have a
helpful response, let out some blurb anyway, even if its absolutely
redundant.

Most helpful would have been if one of the active immigration lawyers
in this newsgroup would have picked up on this topic and had just
given me the straight answer right away (as I requested in the
beginning).

thanks,
kh.

Rete

There is only one active immigration attorney on this forum. Mr. Folinsky might have offered some insight but a straight answer from him is unlikely. He is our riddle man ;-) and will tell you to take it logically ;-) Not a condemnation Mr. F, but an observation !!!

You have been given advice and opinions. Basically what it comes down to, and you know this already and thus the question, the N-400 gives the criteria for meeting the eligibility of the naturalization early based on marriage to a US citizen. It clearly states that one must be in a viable, continuing marriage and you must prove this to their satisfaction. Yes you can hedge and not be completely truthful by ommission of fact but that leaves you open to the possibility sometime in the future of having your naturalization revoked if CIS is made aware that you were separated from your wife at the time of your interview and test and/or at the oath ceremony.

Your questions are valid but the answers can only be opinionated. Call an immigration attorney and get a consultation on this issue. It is the wisest course of action I, or anyone else, can suggest.

ian-mstm

Oh please! Don't presume to tell us what this forum is about - there are a few of us - yes, me included - who were around when this newsgroup started long before it was ported to British Expats. That said, I'll judge anyone and anything I damn well please regardless of the topic of the newsgroup.

Ian

Just Jenney

So you admit that you contradicted yourself. That's a start, at least. However, if you are aware that your statements were contradictory but yet STILL can't grasp how that could shape the kind of feedback you receive, then what's the point in even asking questions on here at all? Don't blame us if you are incapable of expressing yourself well.

Court TV? I don't have cable.

As was so eloquently explained by Marnee a few posts ago, your marital status IS relevant to your particular situation. If you don't get that, well again, why are you posting here??

If that's what you actually meant, then you should have expressed it that way initially. Unfortunately you didn't, which led everyone to misinterpret your intentions.

If you reread your original post, you'll see how you talk a lot about separation and divorce -- you don't once say ANYTHING about a temporary separation. You even ask if it's illegal not to volunteer that you're divorced if you divorce before the oath ceremony.

Is it any wonder why we were confused by your later statements, which seem completely contradictory to that?? Once again, don't blame us for your failure to express yourself clearly.

If you want legal advice, hire a lawyer.

As for straight answers, Ian gave you a very clear and concise answer right from the get-go: "If your naturalization is based on marriage to a USC, you must be married to *and* living with your spouse on the day of your oath ceremony. If you are not, you will not be allowed to naturalize at that time - no options!"

It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that.

~ Jenney

Anon

karlheinz wrote:
    >
    > All I asked for were answers to my questions, Jenney. I am not in
    > court here, nor are you the ones to judge on how I contradicted
    > myself.

Who are you to judge us on how we judge you?? I
This is a usenet newsgroup. Normally, people read newsgroups BEFORE
posting to them. If you had done this, you will note that this and other
newsgroups are full of personal judgements. Why not? This place has
always been and will always be full of opinions..

No need to restate my questions I asked and then comment with
    > 'see how you asked this, see how you asked that, that is proof for
    > your intentions'. May want to consider watching less CourtTV etc.

Maybe you might want to learn how to get your story straight.

    >
    > BTW, this is a forum for marriage-based VISAS. Hence not a forum to
    > judge ones intentions/priorities on his/her marriage, but to discuss
    > questions related to marriage-based VISAS.

Really, does the FAQ prohibit personal comments?

    > And I already explained myself more than sufficiently. My wife is not
    > sure at this point if she wants to live with me or not and needs some
    > time to figure it out. Thats why she plans on moving out for maybe 3
    > months. There is a good chance that she will move back in after that
    > time.

Fine... If she hasn't move out or she has moved back in, then there is
nothing further to discuss. Of course, you do understand that the
"married to and living with" part is for 3 CONSECUTIVE years, right??
(or am I mixed up on this)
So, if at the time of your interview, you meet this requirement, then
there is no problem.


I am of course working with her to keep this marriage alive (no,
    > not because of my visa, I came to the US to live with her initially, I
    > could find good jobs outside of the US as well). I was wondering at
    > what point the citizenship application would be 'doomed'.

It is doomed when you stop being "married to and living with" her.

But, so what??? The worst case scenario is that you file again when you
meet the 5 year requirement, which would be 90 days less than 5 years of
the date you got your PR status. This is probably only a year and 9
month longer than you would have had to wait for filing based on the
marriage. What is the urgency to get the citizenship that feel you have
to mislead USCIS?


Thats why I
    > asked questions related to the timing of her moving back in. As far as
    > moving in on the evening before the interview: I wasnt meaning 'what
    > if she stays for one night', but 'what if she happens to move in and
    > then stays for good'.

It doesn't matter if she moves back in as getting divorced or moving
out, imho, restarts the clock.
    >
    > If I would have known that I only would receive about 1 or 2 helpful
    > answers out of 15 or so (and the rest just being useless comments), I
    > would of course never posed this problem in this forum in the first
    > place.

You have received many helpful responses, you just happen to not like them.

    >
    > I had worked a lot with these forums in the past and always had a
    > positive experience (as in getting useful replies to my questions). I
    > guess nowadays the attitude seems to be that if you dont have a
    > helpful response, let out some blurb anyway, even if its absolutely
    > redundant.

You don't want a "helpful" response, you want one that says you are
doing the right thing.

    >
    > Most helpful would have been if one of the active immigration lawyers
    > in this newsgroup would have picked up on this topic and had just
    > given me the straight answer right away (as I requested in the
    > beginning).

The immigration lawyers are the among the most conservative people of
this group.
The absence of a response, from even one of from them could also be
telling you something that you refused to hear.

I do not understand what is so important about getting citizenship based
on marriage after the marriage has broken up. Are you in a hurry to
sponsor someone?

Karlheinz

Rete <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] om>...
    > There is only one active immigration attorney on this forum. Mr.
    > Folinsky might have offered some insight but a straight answer from him
    > is unlikely. He is our riddle man ;-) and will tell you to take it
    > logically ;-) Not a condemnation Mr. F, but an observation !!!
    >
    > You have been given advice and opinions. Basically what it comes down
    > to, and you know this already and thus the question, the N-400 gives the
    > criteria for meeting the eligibility of the naturalization early based
    > on marriage to a US citizen. It clearly states that one must be in a
    > viable, continuing marriage and you must prove this to their
    > satisfaction. Yes you can hedge and not be completely truthful by
    > ommission of fact but that leaves you open to the possibility sometime
    > in the future of having your naturalization revoked if CIS is made aware
    > that you were separated from your wife at the time of your interview and
    > test and/or at the oath ceremony.
    >
    > Your questions are valid but the answers can only be opinionated. Call
    > an immigration attorney and get a consultation on this issue. It is the
    > wisest course of action I, or anyone else, can suggest.

Rete,

thanks for your answer.

kh.