L D Jones

Boiler wrote:
    >>We paid for her costs to naturalize, however she didn't go
    >>through with
    >>it. Then we sent her money to go back home and well she didn't do
    >> that
    >> either. She seems to be dicking us around and well to be honest
    >> is
    >> enjoying the free money and plans to forever.
    >
    >
    > I am not gobsmacked that she asks, just gobsmacked that you seem so
    > willing to pay.
    >
    > I am a PR and can just imagine the reaction from my missus for such a
    > request, whether or not supported by my lawyer. whatever the American is
    > for 'On your bike'.

Maybe it's "so sue me."

WendySMF

Thanks Rene, I just wanted to know where we stood. If we even had a
case to begin with. That is all I was looking for. I got my answer
and I thank all of you. I know I need to get a lawyer, that will come
in time. I will get a lawyer because I find this law absolutely
ridiculous.

The I864 can be so convoluted and well I wanted to see if we had
something to stand on. Not sure we do.

We did stop payments back in OCtober 2005 and well that is when she got
a lawyer to tell us that we HAD to pay her for an infinite amount of
time and if she decides to never work, become a citizen, or go back to
her country then we will have to pay her until she dies.

I told my husband to geta lawyer last year, but we have no money to do
so. If we do get a lawyer we will have to stop paying her and then
when it does get to court I am almost positive that he will have to pay
al of those backpayments, plus fees to her lawyer and to her.

So, where does that leave us? Paying her forever. That's what the
ultimate answer is, it seems like this is the law and unless you get
caught for not abiding by the law everyone seems to be telling me to
avoid it, perhaps it will go away because she doesn't have the funds to
obtain a lawyer for a long periods of time anyhow, that is what I hear.
I don't like this answer, just because we want to do what is right and
not get caught up in lawsuits. I wish there was an easier way. IT is
very frustrating seeing your hard earned money going to someone who
doesn't appreciate the value of money and won't work.

How is it that someone doesn't want to enrich their lives by working?
Learn new things, more opportunities, growth? I don't understand this
concept, how someone is unwilling to better themselves. It baffles me.

Noorah101

Thanks for clearing that up, I wondered what "on your bike" meant!

Rene

Ray

"On your bike" usually mean ... go away... get out of here ..get on and do it...
another version would be "sling your hook"

Just Jenney

Yes, that's what everyone's been saying!!!!!!!


If we seem harsh it is because we feel like we're talking to a brick wall. It's difficult not to get annoyed when someone seems to be ignoring what you're saying because it's not what they want to hear.


Nothing wrong with that. However, sometimes things are just beyond what laypeople can do, and should be left to professionals to deal with. This is one of those cases.


Where do you get the idea that everyone has a different opinion? Nearly everyone is telling you to stop making payments to this woman. Nearly everyone here is telling you to obtain legal assistance and guidance, NOT from your husband's ex-wife's attorney but to hire one for himself. And nearly everyone is telling you to use the money you WOULD have forked over to his ex-wife to pay for an attorney. Perhaps you are not reading the same thread that I am.

We are advising that you and your husband get a lawyer BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED.

People who have been participating in this forum for years (myself included) have never heard of someone voluntarily making payments to an ex-spouse when there was no court order/decision involved. We can only give feedback on situations we have direct or indirect knowledge of; this is not one of those situations. Is it OUR fault that this has never come up before??

And as far as us having "absolutely NO IDEA how this case is going to turn out" -- well, did you expect us to be psychics? No one has a crystal ball. Even the attorney you may finally end up retaining will not know what will happen. Your attorney may have a better idea of the possible outcome, but there are no guarantees.


So I guess that means we won't be hearing from you again.

~ Jenney

Elvira

Would be interesting to hear the final outcome though, would it not...

Just Jenney

Oh, I agree. It would be great to hear how someone handled this issue.

But I've found that most posters who fall into the "you're-not-saying-what-I-want-to-hear" category rarely, if ever, come back. I suspect this will be one of those cases.

~ Jenney

Noorah101

I found this blurb, and found it interesting. I added the emphasis in bold.

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 Û 213A(e), 8 U.S.C. Û 1183a(e); 8 C.F.R. Û 213a.2(d).

From http://www.twmlaw.com/resources/immi...grant4cont.htm

Now...this is just my layman's opinion...but although it does say the sponsor is liable, it also says the beneficiary has the right to sue the sponsor. I wouldn't read this as "the sponsor must voluntarily pay the beneficiary". I read it to mean "the beneficiary has a right to sue (if he/she can afford to do so)". In this case, if the beneficiary isn't working and doesn't receive any income, how in the world can they afford lawyer's fees to sue the sponsor? Unless they have a lawyer who does all the work for free in hopes of getting paid if the case is won. Also, the contract is between the sponsor and the government, not the sponsor and the beneficiary. I wouldn't pay until the government tells me to, since that's who my contract is with. I could be wrong, but that's what my logic tells me by reading this blurb.

And did I hear you say that you guys are paying HER lawyer fees?

Rene

Elvira

I agree with you. What is more, the government could only sue for refund of welfare payments/pulic assistance that the alien has received from the US government. I got the impression that that person was living off payments received from the sponsor...

olliewat

Yep - that's what she said. WHich made my mind go: Of COURSE the lawyer is going to tell you to pay FOREVER! He/she is getting a cut!

Just Jenney

I just want to point out that not only is Rene's information excellent and her comments reasonable, but they are also exactly what many others have already posted in this thread. That said, given the way this thread has gone so far I'm not sure Wendy will see it that way.

~ Jenney

scrubbedexpat099

Thats how I read it.

Just gets weirder and weirder.

Rete

And therein is what Mr. Folinsky was telling: It is a contract. (Shades of RTI)

What I was telling her: Let the immigrant file suit

What everyone was telling her.

However, the immigrants former husband does not want to be sued. Instead he has paid her and has paid her attorney's costs, etc.

One can lead the horse to water but you can't make them drink.

Elenfair

... Enjoy your lives as doormats.

As for the money to pay a lawyer, how about you STOP PAYING HER and pay for a lawyer with the 12K+ you spend trying to support her ass?

I mean - this is simple: If you stop paying, all she can do is sue to get that money. This takes money. And time. And if you stop paying, how is she going to afford a lawyer, with no job? And no big Oogly Boogleys are going to sneak up on you and throw him in jail. Or fine him.

So - STOP PAYING, GET A LAWYER, and figure this out. Or, you know, if you prefer, just keep on truckin' the way you are now. Everyone here is telling you that there are ways to remedy this situation. Stop and listen to them. Yeesh.

WendySMF

Actually the PR is living off of the sponsor (us). We will get a lawyer. It is interesting though to see you guys say that we shouldn't pay her. I just find that odd. Reason being:

The reason they put this law into place was so that the government would not be liable for supporting immigrants. That I can understand, but no where does it say how the sponsor is supposed to support the immigrant.

It also states that you have to have a minumum of 125% of the poverty level to support the immigrant that you are sponsoring. That divorce does not nullify this agreement, but where in the hell does it say that we should pay?

Why is HER lawyer, yes HER immigration lawyer, stating that we have to pay her for an infinite amount of time? How is that possible? She has to work 40 quarters, go back to the UK, become a citizen, or die. Those are the only ways that this contract will become null and void. So tell me what IS the contract really saying here. What is the bottom line?

The only thing we would have to pay back is the means tested public benefits which she was denied 2 years ago, thank god? If that is the case, how do they enforce this law? How do they enforce support payments from teh sponsor? I know these are all good questions to ask the lawyer, but when you don't want to stop paying in fear that you might get rooked by the government what do you do?

PR is very intelligent, she knows all of the laws, tried to go through her own loopholes and failed, so this is the only way she knows how to get anything to live. Damn this is frustrating.

We will get a lawyer in August sometime, that is when the funds will be available to us, so that is our next step.

Oh and I am not trying to be combative, I am just trying to understand the laws. I know what I know from researching governement websites, but after doing this for two years, I have exhausted my resources. So now I come here.

I will let you guys know what the reprocussions are as I am interested to, to see where this case goes.

I thought it would be more common, a situation like this, but apprantly not. Oh well, now I have to do my lawyer research. LOL.