petalsf

Hi all

My husband made over the 125% last year but not the first two years (and we don't have any assets) so we've asked our best friend to be joint sponsor. She's happy to, but there may be issues with their income too.

Joint sponsor's household is two people, and with me that makes three.

2005 approx 16,970
2006 approx 21,800
2007 approx 40,000

Her husband won't let her (them) sponsor me if they have to use the house, cars etc, as assets on the forms (which is a decision I totally understand and respect obviously).

Do you think the USCIS will go for this? Or will we be trying the scenic route with our application

Many TIA petals

meauxna

I vote for scenic route.

What is your Sponsor/spouse's *current* income like relative to the PG?
There is NO requirement that the past three years' income be +125%.

Is this for an Adjustment of Status or a visa application?

Same questions for a Joint Sponsor.

Do you, and your Joint Sponsor candidates understand what the I-864 is asking in terms of 'support' and 'repayment'?

petalsf

Geez, I got that wrong (I'm dyslexic folks - really!) Hubbie's last 3 years are all under. This year won't be. It'll be about $25,000, possibly a little more.

Yeah I know, but the attorney is trying to scare us into believing our AOS will be denied before interview stage if we haven't got the I-864 neatly sorted first.

AOS

Yep, we all understand what's required of the sponsors etc

Thanks

Noorah101

If your husband is currently earning $25,000 a year, that's more than enough to qualify. He only needs to be making $17,500 for a household of 2 (himself and the immigrant). In my layman's opinion, the fact that last year's tax return was under the amount won't be a problem. He will be demonstrating that his current income is enough.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-864P.pdf

Rene

meauxna

petals, are you earning legal income now?

petalsf

I am out of status and work virtually for a UK company. I do not have any employment authorisation. (yes I know, I know ) My income is far in excess of the 125%

Noorah101

Just in case you still want to use your joint sponsor, it seems her income is also enough. She only needs to be earning $22,000 for a 3-person household, she earns well over that at $40,000 (if she's still earning that amount this year). They would not need to use their assets.

Rene

ian-mstm

I suggest you get a new attorney! Indeed... why are you even using an attorney?

Ian

petalsf

Two attorneys have advised us to go down the joint sponsor route and that we needed three years tax returns at 125%. I wish they'd start thinking out of the box a little.

Turns out that if he doesn't declare some (or all) of his expenses for last year, we can bring hubby's 2007 in on the 125%. Of course that means a bigger tax bill But we may be able to avoid using our joint sponsor at all (which, I suspect would be a better solution all round).

cheers petalsf

ian-mstm

With respect to 3 year's tax returns at 125%... they're both wrong. They have concatenated the requirements... it happens all the time, but the requirement simply doesn't exist.

Ian

meauxna

petals, the attorneys are just being very conservative; don't let Ian or anyone else put you off of it. You have an immigration history, and I'm sure you made the choice that is right for you, right now.

It does help to remember that you are dealing with 2 different requirements.
Sponsors must:
1-Be currently earning at/above the PG for their household
2-Provide their most recent income tax return (until recently, the past 3 years was required).
Notice that the tax return requirement does not also say that those 3 years must be +125% PG.

There is NO need to fiddle the past tax return.

I guess you already know that you can't use your current income. BUT, and old strategy (since you are looking for out of the box) has been to replace your 'filing' copy of the I-864 with a new one, at the interview. At that time, your income could be earned legally with an EAD, and your husband's income might be different (some people take addit'l jobs etc).
That can be a way to remove your Joint Sponsor's obligation.

Now, the reason you don't hear as much about this now is that many AOS are approved without interview, removing your opportunity the take the JS out of the picture or change to a more approvable I-864.

At any rate, don't confuse the requirements; meet each one individually.
And, your Joint Sponsors *still* qualify based on your original post.

tip: check into not traveling on advance parole if your attorney has not discussed this with you.

Tracym

Just a comment - just because the co-sponsor doesn't declare assets doesn't mean they aren't at risk - it really makes no difference if they "use" income or assets.

"Using" the income or asset is simply proof that they can support you. If you were to sue them for support, or you were to claim some government benefit that the government wanted to reclaim from them, their income or assets could be subject to a judgement, regardless of which they put on the form.

Obviously, those are very unlikely scenarios, but I hope they understand the implications of sponsorship.

petalsf

I do think so. We've had consults with two attorneys (I didn't like the first one and am not overly keen on the second one at the moment) though we haven't retained either of them yet.

We're also consulting the NOLO book by Ilona Bray "Fiancé & Marriage Visas". Does anyone have any experience with this book, good or otherwise, they can share please.

TIA petals

meauxna

I have seen several people post that they are using that book; double check things at uscis.gov--there are quite a few outdated things in the book. Especially look for fees and mailing address info online directly.

The K-3 info is hopelessly out of date in the book.

Be sure to double check the I-864 information; I think the book does not include the FINAL RULE REGARDING AFFIDAVITS OF SUPPORT linked in this article.

petalsf

Thanks meauxna, I have the USCIS site in my bookmarks and am double checking everything. I'm also checking the book's update site regularly.

Ohhhh, just checked. The edition I have (the latest one, Feb 2007) contains the final rule in the appendixes. However I'll study the link you provided carefully.

Cheers petals