My wife is about to submit a N-400. She has been a PR for 7 years (via marriage to me; I have been a USC for more than 10 years). We have been married for 9 years. For all the reasons mentioned in other threads, she is going to apply under the 5-year rule, not the 3-year rule -- simpler, less paperwork.
Question: my wife does frequent international travel due to work. Each business trip is about 5 days only. She traveled for work quite a bit until mid-2008, and markedly less since then. We also have longer vacation trips -- about 15 days each vacation trip, about twice a year. In total, in the past 5 years, she has made about 25 trips, for a total of a bit over 200 days. Again, never a trip over 6 months. If I am reading things correctly, she meets the physical presence and the continuous presence requirements -- well over half of her time as PR in US soil, and never a trip over 6 months.
Because she meets these requirements, we don't think we need to worry about going the 5-year route. If the IO asks, "why 20+ trips and 200+ days", she will simply reply, "because my work requires frequent but short international travel".
Question: are we right about not worrying about these trips and the 5-year rule? Or are there IOs out there who can raise an issue (which they shouldn't), in which case it's better to apply under the 3-year rule, even though this implies more paperwork and proof?
Thanks
Question: my wife does frequent international travel due to work. Each business trip is about 5 days only. She traveled for work quite a bit until mid-2008, and markedly less since then. We also have longer vacation trips -- about 15 days each vacation trip, about twice a year. In total, in the past 5 years, she has made about 25 trips, for a total of a bit over 200 days. Again, never a trip over 6 months. If I am reading things correctly, she meets the physical presence and the continuous presence requirements -- well over half of her time as PR in US soil, and never a trip over 6 months.
Because she meets these requirements, we don't think we need to worry about going the 5-year route. If the IO asks, "why 20+ trips and 200+ days", she will simply reply, "because my work requires frequent but short international travel".
Question: are we right about not worrying about these trips and the 5-year rule? Or are there IOs out there who can raise an issue (which they shouldn't), in which case it's better to apply under the 3-year rule, even though this implies more paperwork and proof?
Thanks