I-864

[OfWolfAndMan 0]

Thank you all so much for your input, it's greatly appreciated.

The consular employee said it wasn't that big of a deal that the employment letter didn't use any words like permanent job or that it's of indefinite duration, if she (I) can show paystubs in addition to the employment letter by itself it shows that there currently is a job. Those were his words.

I would feel more comfortable myself if the letter did contain something that specific.

So if we list our 2005 tax return as the most recent one, even though we filed for 2006/07, does she need to submit some kind of evidence from IRS that she wasn't required to file (even though we did) during her time in NL? Or is a letter by herself stating these things sufficient?

The consular employee even suggested we might as well put them (06/07) through a shredder as they were/are pretty much useless, and again those were his words and he wasn't joking about it.

He kept saying don't make it more complicated than it has to.

Easy to say of course.

Edited October 27, 2008 by OfWolfAndMan

[trailmix 77]

You're welcome.

A letter stating that she was not required to file as she had no income in those years will suffice.

Adjudicator's Field Manual - Redacted Public Version \ Chapter 20 Immigrants in General \ Enforceable Affidavits of Support.[Revised as of 06/27/2006].

The sponsor must submit with the Form I-864 the sponsor’s U.S. Federal income tax return for the most recent tax year (that is, the completed tax year immediately preceding the date the sponsor signs the Form I-864). USCIS may generally expect a sponsor, after April 15 of any given year (or April 16 or 17, in a year in which April 15 is on a Saturday or Sunday), to have completed his or her tax return for the previous year. If the sponsor requested an extension, the sponsor should provide proof of filing fo r the extension. If the sponsor did not file a tax return, the sponsor must prove that he or she was not required to file. If a sponsor should have filed, the sponsor must file retroactively and provide proof of filing. Note that U.S. citizens generally have an obligation to file a tax return on non-U.S. earnings even if there was no tax liability.

Note: Typical proof that a sponsor was not required to file a tax return for a particular year would consist of a written statement from the sponsor, signed under penalty of perjury, attesting to the amount of his or her income for the relevant year and to the fact that a tax return was not required by law. USCIS adjudicators handling Form I-864 issues should be aware of the income threshold for the requirement of filing a tax return for the last several years, so that an RFE for evidence of the law is not neces sary. In particular, the Instruction booklets for each year’s Forms 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ specify the income threshold below which a person is not required to file a return. link

[OfWolfAndMan 0]

Thank you trailmix.

So what would be the safest route?

A)

- Use the 2005 tax return as the most recent federal tax return and completely discard the 2006 and 2007 returns which have my total income of the Netherlands on it, even though I wasn't even required to file US income taxes as I had already lost my permanent resident status.

- Have her write a statement using the above guidelines in your quote

- Fill in her current annual income as $66,000 from her new job that she started in July of this year ($5500 monthly salary), along with paystubs and a letter from her employer

or

B )

- Use 2007 as the most recent federal tax return and submit the returns of the 2nd and 3rd most recent years (2006 and 2005) along with her filling in '0' as her income for the years 2007 and 2006 and the actual number of the 2005 return as her income for that tax year on her I-864.

- Have her write an accompanying letter stating she did not earn an income in NL during 2006 and 2007 but that we filed income taxes and used my income from NL even though we later found out it wasn't necessary.

- Fill in her current annual income as $66,000 from her new job that she started in July of this year, along with paystubs and a letter from her current employer

----

Which option would be the safest/best and in case that's option b, would I have to submit some kind of form/statement since it's my income on the returns of 2006 and 2007, from NL, that we weren't even supposed to report?

I would really like to hear you guys' input on this. And thanks a bunch!

Edited October 28, 2008 by OfWolfAndMan

[YuAndDan 153]

The consulate is most concerned with current income, and most recent IRS return (2007), can list 2006 and 2005 on the form, and attach returns for those years they wont show a pattern of continuous income though, a note about living out of the USA and not having an income is a good thing to attach in case it is questioned.

[OfWolfAndMan 0]

The consulate is most concerned with current income, and most recent IRS return (2007), can list 2006 and 2005 on the form, and attach returns for those years they wont show a pattern of continuous income though, a note about living out of the USA and not having an income is a good thing to attach in case it is questioned.

And this is fine with her filling in '0' for 2007 and 2006 even though the numbers on the joint return are not 0, but my income, a statement from her exlpaining that situation would suffice? I mean, it doesn't require anything else besides that?

[trailmix 77]

Basically I am just stating to you what is in the adjudicator's field manual and what I know to be true - based on that.

The fact that they told you to use 2005 as the most recent tax year is completely confusing to me as it clearly states in the I-864 instructions:

For ALL sponsors:

A copy of your individual Federal income tax return, including W-2s for the most recent tax year, or a statement and/or evidence describing why you were not required to file

It doesn't say - except if the income is zero for last year, then put in the amount for the nearest tax year where you had income?? If everyone was going to use this method then, for instance, if you had low income in 2007, under the 125% of the guidelines, then why not use 2006 if that was a good year for income?

It's basically the same thing - but it is not correct.

Option B is the only option here, in my opinion.

In fact the last guy you spoke to was right about one thing. Those two years that show only your income are - garbage - to them.

I would take them along to the interview anyway though.