medos

Hi to everyone in this great forum, you have been helping us a lot so far.

However, we would like to ask for some clarification re an I-864 issue. I guess that meauxna's experiences from 12 Aug 2002 ("I-864 Questions Answered") will have come closest to our situation, but any help is appreciated.

We are filing for an IR-1 visa using the DCF route. She is the USC, he is the alien spouse, our wedding took place back in 1999, and we have been living abroad since.

We have been filing taxes as required by the IRS (jointly), and our income exceeds 125% of the poverty line.

The only problem seems to be that although having filed jointly, it is his income and not hers that accounts for almost our entire joint revenues. Being a household member (and having been for way more than six months), he should be eligible for self-sponsoring, right?

I mean: Provided he can show a letter by a US employer stating that he will be hired in roughly the same position he is currently working in and for roughly the same salary, will this be enough during the interview for the I-864 to convince officers that we can support ourselves without needing a joint sponsor?

Again, any help is appreciated, and thank you for all your posted experiences so far.

medos

ironporer

I don't know the answer, but thought the question deserved a "bump" up.

FlyergirlUK

Not an expert on DCF here but I do have the I-864 in front of me and it states:

So, it appears that, for your husband's income to be included, he should fill out the I-864A while you fill out the I-864, (as he will be supporting you as you support him, financially).
I think it would also be prudent to include a letter of future employment for him, (it certainly couldn't do any harm) though you will need to send proof of current employment also.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes

Tam

medos

So it appears that whether either income or assets come from abroad or the US wouldn't matter to the Consulate... sounds good...

I remember hearing something about a requirement that spouses' income had to be from the US, but it indeed seems as though that's just that, hearsay.

Regarding my current employment, I presume that being on maternity leave and receiving compensation in (foreign) public maternity benefits will be okay? And: Am I right to assume that for DCF, the I-864 is just a more or less convenient way to facilitate the Consular Officers' job to determine whether a partially American family can support themselves when moving to the US?

I guess we will just prepare as many forms in as many ways as possible and hope for the Consulate to find some combination viable.

medos

jeffreyhy

medos,

What matters wrt income is not so much where past income came from, but where future income is going to come from.

Does the sponsor have a confirmed job or other source of income in the US? If not, how is the sponsor going to support the immigrant? Current or past jobs that have ended will not pay tomorrow's bills, unless sufficient liquid assets have been set aside from that past income.

Regards, JEff

medos

Certainly; by common sense. So what do you think we should prepare ourselves for at the interview? To convince officers in terms of common sense that we will not become dependent on welfare or to demonstrate that we have followed the I-864 instructions (and met its requirements) by the letter; or both?

I am going to be my husband's sponsor (as is required for I-130 petitioners). I currently do not have a confirmed job in the US, but he has got an offer. Just like here, he would definitely make more than 125% of the poverty line.

The bottom line is that I have abdicated the responsibility, joy, and burden of making money to my husband, thus enabling us as a couple to make more money and have kids at the same time. I must admit I have always thought the I-864A were there precisely for this situation, where in one household, responsibilities (like earning income) aren't split evenly but in a way like, only one of them is an income earner, but then a big income earner.

Well, then how is a sponsor who gets laid off going to support anybody? This would question the whole idea of self-sponsoring immigrants (or those who use income rather than assets)... How about sponsors with assets who simply gamble their money away? Isn't it the case that a person's eligibility to become a sponsor is only a matter of their likelihood to maintain their wealth, i.e. either income or assets?

Sure. But this would imply that self-sponsoring immigrants could only use assets to qualify. Maybe this is just the case; but I do wonder why the instructions to forms I-864 and I-864A seem to imply the opposite (and, of course, why they seem only to seem to imply the opposite).

medos

meauxna

hi medos,
I've been following your post but am not sure if you need me to add anything; you seem to have it fairly well figured. One tip I'll add, if you are still unsure:
In the course of one of my visits to the Consulate, I asked them to 'review' my I-864+A before I submitted it. I has cultivated a bit of rapport with the staffers there, and the top CO (who approves/not the I-864s) is husband to the CO who was my notary for a couple of docs. I just asked if he would scan it over and tell me if I was on track. He did so behind the scenes and his wife brought it back out to me and gave the thumbs up.

Since you are legitibately living abroad, of course your income will be abroad. If you will receive ongoing income from your maternity leave, that counts as income. My husband, for example, receives payments from his pension every month, paid out from the UK, but proved to be ongoing. That counts as income.

You will likely get an opportunity to discuss your finances at your final interview. As noted in my interview post, the CO called me up to discuss my I-864 and I was questioned about my future prospects. Specifically: "What are your plans?" & "Do you have any job offers?"

jeffreyhy

medos,

It's not an issue of convincing the consular officers that your husband will not become a public charge once he is in the US, especially convincing by common sense. It's a bit more than that. The I-864 is a contract between you and the US government that you will provide your husband with support in an amount no less than 125% of the poverty level.

If you fail to do so, and your husband is granted means-tested benefits by the government, the government can sue you on the basis of the I-864 to recover the payments.

Also if you fail to support your husband in an amount no less that 125% of the poverty level, he can sue you himself to obtain that level of support from you. Although in this case, since he is self-sponsoring with you, that could be interesting.


I wouldn't want to give an opinion as to whether or not a consular officer (if that's who reviews the I-864 for a DCF) would accept a promise of a job as sufficient for meeting the requirements of the law. In the case for a K1 or K3 the immigrant is already in the US and working by the time it is necessary to submit an I-864 for AOS. In the case of the traditional IR/CR visa, with or without DCF of the petition, what you postulate may well be the case. Unless the company they were working for in the foreign country is transferring them to a job in the US.

I do know of cases where the granting of a visa from DCF has been held up because the foreign-resident USC not only didn't have a job yet back in the US, but they didn't have a domicile there either. So although substantial petition processing time was saved by the DCF, visa processing time increased as a consequence of waiting for the USC to return to the US to establish domicile and get a job. Only after this was done was the visa issued.

Regards, JEff

medos

Without splitting hairs... the I-864 clearly says that the "Purpose of this Form" be "to show that an intending immigrant has adequate means of financial support and is not likely to become a public charge." So I guess it all boils down to the wooly concept of "likeliness."
I realize the need for contracts to substantiate the immigrant's unlikelihood to become a public charge. Anything else would hold immigration regulations up to ridicule.

However, you raise an interesting question: Is a sponsor liable to an extent of 125% of the poverty level or only to whatever means-tested public benefits cost? I am definitely willing to become liable to the former, but I would think the latter is more plausible.
I don't have no problem with that one. My question was if the Consulate will have any. meauxna seems to suggest that we should be okay without requiring a joint sponsor, but apparently, you two seem to contradict each other perfectly well.
Same question: Could I be sued to give him the money, directly? Or could I only be sued to spend money for food stamps (and other eligible benefits)? Same remark, I am willing to do the former, but the latter seems more realistic.
As could be any case where an immigrant is self-sponsoring. Or do I miss anything?
Just for the sake of exactness: A promise of a job together with the fact that he is currently making good money.
And could decide to give notice to quit shortly after the interview. How would the immigrant's spouse be in a situation different from mine?
Just out of curiosity: Were these spousal visa petitions or was for example the immigrant a USC's parent? Could and would I really be required to leave my family behind, including an infant (that my husband could nurse or what?), just to enable them to follow me? Not that I could not imagine it (yet I could certainly not live with it), but it just sounds a little ridiculous.

medos

jeffreyhy

Medos,

Your quote is from the instruction sheet, not from the I-864 affidavit. Read the affidavit. All of it. Carefully. It can be sobering.

Read Part 7 of the affidavit.

Neither Meuxna nor I can tell you what a particular official is going to tell you upon reviewing the information that you will provide. I hope that your understanding of what Meuxna wrote turns out to be correct.

Read Part 7 of the affidavit.


One never knows what could happen tomorrow. Yes, a person who has a job today (and had one yesterday) could quit it tomorrow. And a person who doesn't have a job today (but did have one yesterday) could get a new one tomorrw.

Again, I can't answer for any official who might be reviewing your submittal. I can imagine an officer with an optimistic outlook, who is having a good day, saying 'Yes, you're heading for the US with a good history and a job offer - approved.' I can also imagine an officer with a pessimistic outlook, who is having a bad day, saying 'You're heading for the US on a wing and a prayer, only a promise in an area of employment where the job market is weak - sorry, not good enough.'

Spousal. Yes, the petitioners were required to return to the US without their spouses to establish domicile. When domicile was established, the visas were approved and the spouses came to the US.

Regards, JEff