Noorah101

Wow, I just got back from a nice 3 day vacation in the mountains, and saw this update.

Wendy, thanks for the update on your situation. So am I reading that you have now gotten your OWN lawyer (not the ex-wife's lawyer), and that your own lawyer, who is looking out for your best interest, has told you 100% absolutely that your husband MUST pay her VOLUNTARILY? Did your lawyer put that in writing? Or are you still just doing your own research?

By the way, what you quoted is true. What you're not understanding is the difference between:
1. the immigrant CAN SUE for (which is what the law says).... and
2. the sponsor MUST VOLUNTARILY pay for (which is what you're doing).

If your husband has yet to be sued by anyone, he doesn't have to pay right now. I know I'm late to the thread, and it's all been said already...but had to put in my 2 cents worth. lol

Best Wishes,
Rene

kiwichild

I also think stop paying and let her go claim welfare. Even if your husband is required to pay back means tested payments the rate of repayment may be able to be negotiated. Who knows, maybe even a tax deducation could be claimed to offset it.

It is definitely worth pursuing with a lawyer who specialises in these type of matters (if affordable). If after 3 or 5 yrs residency she fails to apply for US citizenship, maybe that could be a defence; that she is being unreasonable and obviously had no intention of becoming a citizen after the marriage brokedown and is now just being malicious.

WendySMF

Noorah101 wrote:
    > > 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!
    > Wow, I just got back from a nice 3 day vacation in the mountains, and
    > saw this update.
    > Wendy, thanks for the update on your situation. So am I reading that
    > you have now gotten your OWN lawyer (not the ex-wife's lawyer), and
    > that your own lawyer, who is looking out for your best interest, has
    > told you 100% absolutely that your husband MUST pay her VOLUNTARILY?
    > Did your lawyer put that in writing? Or are you still just doing your
    > own research?
    > By the way, what you quoted is true. What you're not understanding is
    > the difference between:
    > 1. the immigrant CAN SUE for (which is what the law says).... and
    > 2. the sponsor MUST VOLUNTARILY pay for (which is what you're doing).
    > If your husband has yet to be sued by anyone, he doesn't have to pay
    > right now. I know I'm late to the thread, and it's all been said
    > already...but had to put in my 2 cents worth. lol
    > Best Wishes,
    > Rene
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com


Just to clarify, we went to the lawyer and he stated the law, however
he did say that we could wait for her to sue us and we would end up
having to pay back payments if it went to court. Therefore, we have
decided amongst the two of us, to stop sending her payments and see how
she survives. It's like a little test with a rat in a cage. Thanks
for everyone's advice, I know I sounded harsh in some areas, but I want
you to know that you got me thinking and I was combative and resistant
at first. I don't want anything bad to happen as far as the law goes,
to my husband. Now you can understand that. So, we are not going to
pay her anymore, she has been informed and was also informed that we
got our own immigration lawyer. I know this lawyers credentials, he
was referred to us by the immigration lawyer that they used when she
came over here, he could not represent us because it was a conflict of
interest. Anyway, she is nailed to the wall! What now you ask? We
wait.

scrubbedexpat099

Good luck,

Let us know what happens.

ian-mstm

While I wouldn't presume to speak for others, I think a lot of us who have been following your story and who have offered suggestions, can breathe a collective sigh of relief. I, for one, feel that you are now on the right track with this issue. When people feel strongly about their position there is bound to be some irritation and annoyance... and this has been adequately demonstrated by those on both sides. Such is the nature of the free exchange of information in an open forum.

Despite my reputation on this forum as a hardass and general sh*t disturber, I do truly hope you and your husband come out of this with no further problems. Best of luck to you both.

Ian

Elvira

No really? I had NO idea!!!!

I thought you were just a cute little puppy...

meauxna

QUOTE=WendySMF
"So, we are not going to
pay her anymore, she has been informed and was also informed that we
got our own immigration lawyer. I know this lawyers credentials, he
was referred to us by the immigration lawyer that they used when she
came over here, he could not represent us because it was a conflict of
interest. Anyway, she is nailed to the wall! What now you ask? We
wait." /QUOTE]

It still strikes me as odd that you'd use these same lawyers.

You are using a lawyer who was referred to you by the JointInterest lawyer?

Not enough distance for me, but I guess you have to trust someone....

I'm sure we'd all love to hear what the ex has to say/do about this.. we're all invested, now! <g>

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Common enough practice. The old attorney is in a strange situation -- even though in conflict, he does have residual obligations towards the client. I know when I've been placed in a conflict, I've delcared the conflict and referred them to other lawyers. I don't see the problem with that.

meauxna

Yes, but obligation to which client? As I understand it, Original Attorney is still representing exwife?
Should now say 'as I understood it' because now I'm not clear if there were 2 or 3 lawyers (eww, I just had to scan back through the whole thing again).

I'm sure the lawyer is on the up and up, it's just felt a bit close for comfort for *me*.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I don't think it was intentional, but OP was mixing up what was said with what she interpeted. This is fairly common in legal consultations. It seems that all original lawyer said "this is what the I-864 and the law says" without expanding on it. I don't know if OP's husband gave the entire story behind her inquiry.

For example, lets say I represented a couple and later the AmCit contacts me after I closed the file with a question "what are my obligations under the I-864" I would have given EXACTLY the answer which OP "quoted" the lawyer as saying. In contrast, if the AmCit contacts me later and says something along the lines of the OP, I would instantly declare a conflict and suggest another lawyer -- even giving several names.

Noorah101

Congratulations. I'm happy to hear the news. Please do come back and let us know whatever happens in the long run. Good luck to you.

Best Wishes,
Rene