andrea874

I seriously cant believe I just sat here and read this entire thread

ian-mstm

Karma on its way... for winning the endurance test!

Ian

fatbrit

and your verdict was?

Noorah101

And you're still coherent? LOL

Rene

Folinskyinla

Hi:

And not one person, until now, mentioned "UPL."

This is in sharp contrast with the "Freeman v Gonzales" string where one of the lay posters brought it up on the second posting of a long string.

scrubbedexpat099

Well everybody was saying go get a lawyer.

WendySMF

Okay guys, just an FYI.... The lawyer was a lawyer he had already used
when he brought her over here, it is a lawyer in his firm. So YES I
got a lawyer right away because we knew who to call you morons!!

Second... The lawyer states this....

Enforceability of Affidavits
Under the 1996 law, the I-864 affidavit of support is a legally
enforceable contract between the sponsor and the federal government.
The intended beneficiaries are the sponsored immigrant and any federal,
state or local government agency or private entity that provides a
means-tested benefit to the immigrant. Any of the intended
beneficiaries can sue the sponsor. Sponsored immigrants can sue to
force the sponsor to maintain them at least at 125 percent of the
federal poverty level. Moreover, should the immigrant ever obtain a
means-tested benefit, the agency or entity that provided that benefit
can sue the sponsor for reimbursement. INA U 213A(e), 8 U.S.C. U
1183a(e); 8 C.F.R. U 213a.2(d).
For example, if the sponsored immigrant has received Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) benefits based on age or disability, the federal
government can ask the sponsor to reimburse the full amount of the
monthly benefit. Or if Medicaid covered a sponsored immigrant's
hospital bill, both the state and federal governments can sue to
collect reimbursement of their respective share of the costs. Faced
with the prospect of such costs, a lot of otherwise faithful relatives
may balk at signing the new affidavit of support form.
Under the new law, sponsors have to commit to supporting the
sponsored immigrant until the immigrant has: (1) become a naturalized
U.S. citizen; (2) worked at least 10 years in this country; (3) left
the United States permanently; or (4) died. INA U 213A(a)(2), (3), 8
U.S.C. U 1183a(a)(2), (3); 8 C.F.R. U 213a.2(e). A divorce does not
nullify the sponsorship agreement. Thus, a spouse who sponsors an
immigrant remains liable to support his or her spouse at 125 percent of
the federal poverty level even if they get divorced, until one of the
four conditions listed above occurs.

So you are all friggin WRONG, we DO have to pay her until she either
goes home to her country, works 40 quarters, becomes a citizen or dies.
So **** off!

Elvira

Oh I am - and I'm sure everybody else here is too - soooooooooooooo glad that you are happy now!!!

Rete

No we are not wrong. What you said is very true and something we know about. What we were trying to tell you is that you don't have to voluntarily pay 125 percent as support payments. Nothing you wrote said you have to pay ALIMONY which your husband is doing. It says you have to reimburse certain means tested benefits given to her. That is not the same.

But hey, I'm glad you are pleased with the answer you were given and hope your husband doesn't mind clocking in more billable hours in his law firm. Just be glad she hasn't taken him yet to court to demand a more equitable distribution of his monies in alimony payments.

Wishing your husband a long and prosperous financial life. He is going to need it.

ian-mstm

This was never an issue... the thing is though, she didn't sue him. He is giving the money to her voluntarily. There's a big f**king difference and I suspect you know it also. If you and your husband are so incredibly stupid and gullible, then not only do you both deserve each other, you also deserve everything that comes of it. But hey... have a great day!

Ian

Folinskyinla

Hi Wendy:

Before you said it was her lawyer who told you. Now you give a statement from the lawyer who had previously represented both HIM and HER. [BTW, your syntax suggest that the lawyer you previously mentioned and the lawyer they both had may be the same lawyer. I'll assume that is an error in writing]

The lawyer YOU have now quoted made a proper statement of law which you strongly disagree with. Unlike you, I think the lawyer you quote in THIS post is right.

You now have the lawyer you quote here, you have the statment of THIS lawyer [although I'm not YOUR lawyer], you've been referred to Charles Wheeler's legal article which includes a link to an ACTUAL COURT CASE which notes the availability of standard contract defenses.

If your husband and you think that the lawyer who represented BOTH him and his ex- in the immigration proceedings is wrong, that is your privilege. But that is no reason to accuse everyone else of being "wrong" and telling to "**** off."

Folinskyinla

Hi:

FWIW, there was editing in this answer that was NOT mine.

Just Jenney

Did your lawyer ACTUALLY state that? Did you take dictation while he was explaining this to you? Is this the transcription of that conversation?

Oh, wait... silly me. A quick Googling of the first sentence shows that you simply cut-and-pasted this from another website. It's copyrighted material and there is a disclaimer saying it is NOT legal advice. The least you could do is give credit where credit is due.



Perhaps in the very lengthy cut-and-pasted text you've posted you skipped over the following morsel:

"Sponsored immigrants can sue to force the sponsor to maintain them at least at 125 percent of the federal poverty level."

Why would it say that sponsored immigrants CAN sue to force the sponsor to maintain them? If sponsors have no choice but to maintain immigrant beneficiaries -- as you contend -- then why would ANY immigrant ever need to sue for enforcement? I would think that if your interpretation of the support agreement was the reality, then all the immigrant beneficiary would have to do would be to turn in their sponsor to USCIS for non-support. But that's NOT reality. Which is why what WE'RE saying makes sense.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we've said. You made up your mind 11 pages ago in your first post. However entertaining this thread has been, it has also been a colossal waste of everyone's time.

Have fun paying voluntarily to this woman every month. I'm sure she'll enjoy every penny of it.

~ Jenney

fatbrit

It's the autocensor. Used to catch the fair town of Scunthorpe, too.

You can get round it if you are clever BTW.

scrubbedexpat099

I clicked the link before reading the rest of your comments, and that was the first think the struck me.

Why do I never meet people who are so generous with their money....