Reg:1-864

[starsinsky 1]

For Guangzhou, probably a good idea but if it's just the two of you, you should be ok.

Thanks for all helps. I have no dependents on my tax files. I always claim myself only as single on all my tax returns.

[pushbrk 12,569]

Thanks for all helps. I have no dependents on my tax files. I always claim myself only as single on all my tax returns.

The issue is not what you claim on the tax return. If you have children under 21, they count in the household size no matter where they live or who claims them.

[starsinsky 1]

The issue is not what you claim on the tax return. If you have children under 21, they count in the household size no matter where they live or who claims them.

I live with my parents and a 22 yrs old brother in same house. I file my annual tax individually, and my parents claim my brother because he is still in university. So on household size list, what # should i put ?

[pushbrk 12,569]

I live with my parents and a 22 yrs old brother in same house. I file my annual tax individually, and my parents claim my brother because he is still in university. So on household size list, what # should i put ?

It's two. Don't count your wife twice. Put zero for spouse. She's already counted as the sponsored immigrant.

[starsinsky 1]

It's two. Don't count your wife twice. Put zero for spouse. She's already counted as the sponsored immigrant.

Thanks for clearing up questions for me. Hope everything will go smoothly to me and my hubby.

[Bob g 11]

Thanks for the advices. I earned around $21000 from 2008,2009, and 2010<I should have earned more in 2010, but i took around 2 months off to have vacation with my hubby. As you mentioned about a letter of employment for 2011, the 2011 annual income will be around $24000, with my IRAs $2000 + bank checking deposit $5000,and my house is in debt $142,000, do you think i still need a co-sponsor?

Having 3 years, 2008, 2009, and 2010, over the minimum would be very good. Having the 2011 employment letter, and recent pay stubs at Interview Time showing $2000 monthly income should be very good also. I would not mention the house debt. If your house was paid for or had alot of equity built up, that would be a good asset. Cash, income, IRA, Deposits, is easier for Guangzhou to understand.

[pushbrk 12,569]

Having 3 years, 2008, 2009, and 2010, over the minimum would be very good. Having the 2011 employment letter, and recent pay stubs at Interview Time showing $2000 monthly income should be very good also. I would not mention the house debt. If your house was paid for or had alot of equity built up, that would be a good asset. Cash, income, IRA, Deposits, is easier for Guangzhou to understand.

If the income alone qualifies, all asset related questions can simply be left blank. Read the instructions carefully but if you state any assets be sure to properly document them.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Pointless to answer. If there was potential confusion it's cleared up now.

Come on, man. Answer the question.

[pushbrk 12,569]

Come on, man. Answer the question.

If you can't tell what I thought was potentially confusing by what I already wrote, continuing the discussion is pointless AND off topic. Please just drop it.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

If you can't tell what I thought was potentially confusing by what I already wrote, continuing the discussion is pointless AND off topic. Please just drop it.

I'd rather not. And not because I want to have a fist-fight with you. I merely want clarity for readers.

I think what you already wrote is that the present income of a previously unemployed RN is "more acceptable" than the present income of an office clerk. In this scenario, the clerk has been raised to full time employment in an organization she has been with for three years. In this scenario I can only assume that the present income of both ladies meets or exceeds US poverty guidelines x 25 percent.

While a "professional" such as an RN should be given "credit" for having gained an education and the expectation of future earnings via that education, likewise a person who has documented experience in their same field should be granted the same courtesy of expectation. Income is income, after all.

[pushbrk 12,569]

I'd rather not. And not because I want to have a fist-fight with you. I merely want clarity for readers.

I think what you already wrote is that the present income of a previously unemployed RN is "more acceptable" than the present income of an office clerk. In this scenario, the clerk has been raised to full time employment in an organization she has been with for three years. In this scenario I can only assume that the present income of both ladies meets or exceeds US poverty guidelines x 25 percent.

While a "professional" such as an RN should be given "credit" for having gained an education and the expectation of future earnings via that education, likewise a person who has documented experience in their same field should be granted the same courtesy of expectation. Income is income, after all.

That's a separate issue. You asked why I thought something you wrote could be confusing. Here was my answer. You had written that NVC will only look at current income. See bold below for the answer to your question about what could be confusing.

The bold above could be a little confusing. NVC will look at whatever you send. The most recent tax return is required, along with documentation of "current income". You can have no tax return showing qualified income but document "current income" and pass but there's no guarantee on such a judgment call.

For example, I'm aware of a case where the petitioner recently took her first job as a Registered Nurse. I don't expect any problems even though she's never filed a tax return. On the other hand, I'm aware of a case where the last three years of income are all below the guidelines and the petitioner has recently upgraded from part time to full time as a clerical worker at a small business she's been working part time for. That paints a quite different picture. In the second case, I would strongly advise a joint sponsor.

As for your new subject matter, I'm happy to discuss that. Consular officers are looking at the totality of circumstances. They are trained to do that and expected to. We've seen numerous folks asked for co sponsors or joint sponsors even though their current income meets the minimum guidelines. A Consular officer would know that an RN, with a new job is far more likely to continue to earn well over the poverty line for at least the next several years, because of the demand for nurses. On the other hand, the recently upgraded clerical worker at a small business is in a far less secure position. They certainly might both be approved, but I'll wager a lot more confidently on the nurse and advise the clerical worker (as described) to have a cosponsor ready.

The same logic is used in Manila, for example, when they decide to accept a parent cosponsor for a recent or soon to be college graduate while declining to do so for the more mature underemployed worker.

The above is my opinion based on significant experience, feedback and research. YMMV

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

That's a separate issue. You asked why I thought something you wrote could be confusing. Here was my answer. You had written that NVC will only look at current income. See bold below for the answer to your question about what could be confusing.

The bold above could be a little confusing. NVC will look at whatever you send. The most recent tax return is required, along with documentation of "current income". You can have no tax return showing qualified income but document "current income" and pass but there's no guarantee on such a judgment call.

For example, I'm aware of a case where the petitioner recently took her first job as a Registered Nurse. I don't expect any problems even though she's never filed a tax return. On the other hand, I'm aware of a case where the last three years of income are all below the guidelines and the petitioner has recently upgraded from part time to full time as a clerical worker at a small business she's been working part time for. That paints a quite different picture. In the second case, I would strongly advise a joint sponsor.

As for your new subject matter, I'm happy to discuss that. Consular officers are looking at the totality of circumstances. They are trained to do that and expected to. We've seen numerous folks asked for co sponsors or joint sponsors even though their current income meets the minimum guidelines. A Consular officer would know that an RN, with a new job is far more likely to continue to earn well over the poverty line for at least the next several years, because of the demand for nurses. On the other hand, the recently upgraded clerical worker at a small business is in a far less secure position. They certainly might both be approved, but I'll wager a lot more confidently on the nurse and advise the clerical worker (as described) to have a cosponsor ready.

The same logic is used in Manila, for example, when they decide to accept a parent cosponsor for a recent or soon to be college graduate while declining to do so for the more mature underemployed worker.

The above is my opinion based on significant experience, feedback and research. YMMV

Well, that's interesting. Because I didn't state any such thing about NVC. And as nearly as I can tell, you weren't responding to any question I had.

I know your mileage may vary, and I know you think you have experience that the rest of us don't. My experiences are quiet different than yours. I think the clerical worker, with a well prepared case, would find her case stands nicely on its own. Consular officers have discretion, this is true. They are also Americans, and they know the economic outlook in their homeland. Depending on where the RN lives, she's just as likely to land in the bread line as a clerical worker. Some areas of the country don't need another RN. And the clerical worker has been in her job three years, and just got promoted.

That's my two cents from significant experience, feedback and research. YMMV.

[pushbrk 12,569]

Well, that's interesting. Because I didn't state any such thing about NVC. And as nearly as I can tell, you weren't responding to any question I had.

I know your mileage may vary, and I know you think you have experience that the rest of us don't. My experiences are quiet different than yours. I think the clerical worker, with a well prepared case, would find her case stands nicely on its own. Consular officers have discretion, this is true. They are also Americans, and they know the economic outlook in their homeland. Depending on where the RN lives, she's just as likely to land in the bread line as a clerical worker. Some areas of the country don't need another RN. And the clerical worker has been in her job three years, and just got promoted.

That's my two cents from significant experience, feedback and research. YMMV.

I made two major assertions in the post to which you replied with the single word "Why?". I thought you were asking about the first assertion that the previous post (made by another) was potentially confusing. Evidently you were asking why I thought the nurse would be approved and not the clerical worker. Now you have my explanation. We disagree. I'll be happy to report how the two cases work out.

[Darnell 8,478]

I-864s are not processed at NVC for K-3 visas - so - this isn't a K-3 visa topic

But - You should take a hard look at NVC Electronic Processing - see http://www.visajourney.com/wiki/index.php/NVC_Electronic_Processing

*** moving to IR-1/CR-1 forum, for now ***