Is it an impasse?

[C Med 14]

Someone else will chime in with better info, but I "do" think that you can send her money to put in her bank account and those assets would count. Being that she has not worked in the last 3 years, I think the amount of assets would be roughly $50-60k if it is just the two of you. You can look the number up for 125% of poverty level for two, or someone will probably chime in with the answer.

I don't know if that is a great idea. It might look like you are paying her to marry you. If you as the beneficiary have enough money to support the two of you, and can provide proof of that at the interview, I should hope that that would be enough, but I can't say for sure.

[Gosia & Tito 199]

You wrote, "And the risk is not as high as it would seem at first glance. Once the couple has enough income to qualify on their own, you are released of the obligation." That's a false statement.

Certainly a joint sponsor is eventually relieved of their obligation but it is not simply by an increase in income by the petitioner. Five years of both petitioner and beneficiary working would do it, as would several other factors spelled out in the contract itself. It's also true that NONE of those factors may EVER come into play, leaving the joint sponsor obligated for the remainder of their life.

You might be quite right (In the increase of income). I can't recall the exact circumstance, except that 2-3 years had passed )or at least is what it seemed to me, and maybe it was the 5 you noted) and one day I got a letter stating what I mentioned. My friend had told me earlier that she was requesting a release on my behalf. When they married they had both just finished school (that is where they met), so had no income but job offers, today my friend has her own company (healthcare related) and is in a position to get my future wife a job (I don't even need to ask, she's offered already). All this was about 1998, ages ago, and I can't recall more details.

And yes, you are correct in that the obligation might remain for life. I knew that, and I trusted it did not become a problem, given the degrees and the obvious desire to work and be independent. As I mentioned before, I an always on for karma points.

[Ready to do it 101]

1998... that's the key. Back then the hook was only for 3 years. How do I know? Because I signed one in 1997 (temporary perm resident) and then again in 2000 for permanent residency. Jim points out that the law was from 1995 or 1996. I do know that the one I signed in 2000 was either for 3 years or 5 years. That was one of the reasons I was so shocked when I read that they now require 40 quarters of work.

You might be quite right (In the increase of income). I can't recall the exact circumstance, except that 2-3 years had passed )or at least is what it seemed to me, and maybe it was the 5 you noted) and one day I got a letter stating what I mentioned. My friend had told me earlier that she was requesting a release on my behalf. When they married they had both just finished school (that is where they met), so had no income but job offers, today my friend has her own company (healthcare related) and is in a position to get my future wife a job (I don't even need to ask, she's offered already). All this was about 1998, ages ago, and I can't recall more details.

And yes, you are correct in that the obligation might remain for life. I knew that, and I trusted it did not become a problem, given the degrees and the obvious desire to work and be independent. As I mentioned before, I an always on for karma points.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Ready to do it

[Gosia & Tito 199]

If the joint sponsor takes their obligation seriously, as they should, then the likelihood of them ever being on the hook for millions of dollars is remote. The immigrant isn't going to be eligible for most means tested benefits for the first five years. After that, the joint sponsor should be proactive in helping to ensure that the immigrant is supported at the minimum level required by the affidavit, that they have adequate medical insurance, and that they are making progress toward becoming self-sufficient and either becoming a US citizen or accumulating those 40 quarters of work credits. If the joint sponsor has any doubts about the intending immigrants desire to become a contributing and self-sufficient member of American society then they shouldn't sign the affidavit.

If the joint sponsor just forgets about their obligations then it could certainly come back to bite them in the backside if the immigrant falls onto hard times, and ends up on Medicaid with a severe health problem.

How many years ago? Was it before 1996?

There are no provisions in the INA, 8 CFR, or USCIS policies that would make this possible. INA 213A says the contractual obligation of the sponsor ends when the alien becomes a US citizen, or can be credited with 40 quarters of qualifying employment through SSA. 8 CFR 213a.2 adds that the contractual obligations also terminate if the immigrant loses their permanent resident status and leaves the US, obtains a new adjustment of status in removal proceedings, or dies. 8 CFR 213a.2 also adds that the sponsor's obligation ends if the sponsor dies. All of these circumstances (except the part about a new adjustment of status in removal proceedings) are described in the contract portion of the I-864.

Both the INA and 8 CFR also make it clear that the contract becomes binding when the immigration benefit is granted, which means when the alien becomes a permanent resident. For a K1 this would be when the Adjustment of Status is approved. For a CR1 it would be when the immigrant visa is used to enter the US.

If what you described actually happened then I suspect there are mitigating factors that aren't obvious from your post. Perhaps the affidavit was submitted before 1996, when these provisions were added to the law. Perhaps the sponsored immigrant became a US citizen (they are eligible in three years if they remain married to a US citizen). I don't see any provision that would allow USCIS to relieve the joint sponsor of their obligation simply because the primary sponsor's income had become high enough to qualify as a sole sponsor.

1998. And was about the time my friend had become a citizen, so maybe that is what made it happen per your post. By now, they also have the 40 quarters and their own company. She was not K-1 and was in the country with an F-1 I believe. As I noted, she told me she was going to ask for a release and later on I got a letter saying that was the case. Not sure of the provisions you noted happen automatically or a request needs to be made. We are both Spanish speakers and 'asking' does not mean a formal request with a form and process necessarily. She might just have meant that she was going to verbally ask.

One more thing, at the time, I was a GC holder only and had not even applied for USC.

The good thing about this thread is the benefit for all reading, that there is a sure and documented process by which the sponsorship terminates. And this is good. Thanks for the info, we are all learning here (or at least I am)

Edited May 17, 2011 by Gosia & Tito

[RDV 0]

She has left me

[LookyWhatIFound 38]

She has left me

I'm sorry to hear that! Thats going to sting sharply for a while but it always works for the best, you will find out eventually. Hold on you'll find someone, and possibly even one who can love you enough to live with you in your own country.

Best Wishes!