Possible problems with property as an asset

[Lansbury 19]

I have posted this in the UK interview thread, but it bears a separate posting to make sure all are at least aware of a potential problem.

It seems the London Embassy at the moment are not accepting equity in UK property as an asset acceptable on the I-864. Someone has reported being knocked back when they had ample equity in their UK house, as to quote them - the US Embassy would not let us use our house as an asset "due to the current market".

The above happened last Friday.

There is nothing to suggest this is a hard and fast rule but it does indicate that the Embassy are being a lot stricter than they have been when accepting property as an acceptable asset for the I-864, so it is worthwhile being prepared.

[MargotDarko 0]

#######. I read about this happening to someone on another forum I visit, and I thought it was just a one-off, with the officer getting on his high-horse.

It isn't right that they can essentially change the rules without making it clear to the applicants.

[Lansbury 19]

#######. I read about this happening to someone on another forum I visit, and I thought it was just a one-off, with the officer getting on his high-horse.

It isn't right that they can essentially change the rules without making it clear to the applicants.

I completely agree, if this is a rule change it should be made public. It shouldn't be something that is down to an individuals discretion.

Fortunately I think not too may people rely on assets when completing the I-864.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Lansbury

[rebeccajo 14]

#######. I read about this happening to someone on another forum I visit, and I thought it was just a one-off, with the officer getting on his high-horse.

It isn't right that they can essentially change the rules without making it clear to the applicants.

I completely agree, if this is a rule change it should be made public. It shouldn't be something that is down to an individuals discretion.

Fortunately I think not too may people rely on assets when completing the I-864.

I doubt that it's a 'rule change'. The consulate messes about with requirements from time to time (as if they are trying something out) and different CO's interpret things differently. There's loads of anecdotal evidence to this behavior in regards to the US sponsors tax return.

It never made sense to me anyway how one could use equity as an asset if there wasn't a pending contract of sale for the real estate.

[Mags 112]

#######. I read about this happening to someone on another forum I visit, and I thought it was just a one-off, with the officer getting on his high-horse.

It isn't right that they can essentially change the rules without making it clear to the applicants.

I completely agree, if this is a rule change it should be made public. It shouldn't be something that is down to an individuals discretion.

Fortunately I think not too may people rely on assets when completing the I-864.

I doubt that it's a 'rule change'. The consulate messes about with requirements from time to time (as if they are trying something out) and different CO's interpret things differently. There's loads of anecdotal evidence to this behavior in regards to the US sponsors tax return.

It never made sense to me anyway how one could use equity as an asset if there wasn't a pending contract of sale for the real estate.

That makes sense, Becca. I mean, if the house isn't sold (or in the process of being so) then the funds aren't available for use.

[Lansbury 19]

That makes sense, Becca. I mean, if the house isn't sold (or in the process of being so) then the funds aren't available for use.

The requirement is that the asset can be liquidated within 12 months without loss or hardship to the owner.

In the present state of the property market the without loss and doing so in 12 months are proving I would guess to be the stumbling blocks.

So far I am aware of 5 people who have not had their equity accepted as an asset. In only one case was the property in the US, the others were in the UK and would be sold anyway prior to the move.

Edited November 16, 2008 by Lansbury

[Mags 112]

That makes sense, Becca. I mean, if the house isn't sold (or in the process of being so) then the funds aren't available for use.

The requirement is that the asset can be liquidated within 12 months without loss or hardship to the owner.

In the present state of the property market the without loss and doing so in 12 months are proving I would guess to be the stumbling blocks.

So far I am aware of 5 people who have not had their equity accepted as an asset. In only one case was the property in the US, the others were in the UK and would be sold anyway prior to the move.

Ah, gotcha.

[rebeccajo 14]

That makes sense, Becca. I mean, if the house isn't sold (or in the process of being so) then the funds aren't available for use.

The requirement is that the asset can be liquidated within 12 months without loss or hardship to the owner.

In the present state of the property market the without loss and doing so in 12 months are proving I would guess to be the stumbling blocks.

So far I am aware of 5 people who have not had their equity accepted as an asset. In only one case was the property in the US, the others were in the UK and would be sold anyway prior to the move.

Ah, gotcha.

I still stand by my statement that it doesn't make a lot of sense to expect to use equity as serious leverage in an argument with USCIS/DOS. US or UK property makes no difference in the problem, IMO. Even before the markets burst on both sides of the pond.

When we petitioned for adjustment of status, the adjudicator wasn't impressed with the equity in my home (and I had listed it, believe you me). I felt I was very conservative with my calculation. I had an appraisal that was about two years old and subtracted the documented mortgage balance.

What the AO was interested in (and based his approval on) was the cash we had in banks. (My affidavit was short on income so our case is an example of a successful affidavit of support based upon assets.)

I realize my example is USCIS and not DOS, but both the I134 and the I864 reflected the same facts. "Equity" is a subjective number - it's never been used in business as a 'real' variable in and of itself. It's REAL if there is an offer on the table to purchase the asset.

London has always been 'loose' with the affidavit. From time to time it tightens things for real-world scenarios. They still remain one of the most flexible consulates around, which flexibility includes a willingness to work 'case by case' with applicants.

Edited November 18, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Lansbury 19]

I still stand by my statement that it doesn't make a lot of sense to expect to use equity as serious leverage in an argument with USCIS/DOS. US or UK property makes no difference in the problem, IMO. Even before the markets burst on both sides of the pond.

It made sense because the Embassy in London accepted equity in UK property as an asset. We used our £130k equity as the means of filling the requirement. At that time the Embassy would happily accept that method no questions asked. It further make sense because for some especially where the USC has lived in the UK for some time it is the simplest method open to them to meet their sponsorship obligations and could well be the only way. This was recognized by the Embassy.

All we had to show to demonstrate the equity was a statement from the building society for the mortgage balance and a copy of the sales leaflet from the estate agent.

The only thing that has changed is that UK property doesn't sell at the asking price or close to it, so its value and hence the equity is an unknown factor, plus how long it takes to sell. Someone now could be granted a visa and come to the US and the property has not sold. That seems to be making the Embassy reluctant to accept property equity unless you virtually have the money in hand.

The fact they did accept equity in property made sense then as the fact they are now apparently not doing so makes sense in the current circumstances.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Lansbury

[rebeccajo 14]

Lansbury -

I understand the Embassy was doing it and I understand your explanations as to why. As such, your thread warning they have ceased the procedure is timely and helpful.

My only point was that I am not surprised to see such a procedure end. It was borne out of a economic scenario where price and demand were not in the usual alignment with the stars. That time is coming to an end and like everything else a correction must occur.

[rocks 494]

well that sucks. my partner earns enough to be over the poverty level but i was hoping that the value of my house would help too. i own it outright, do you think that would make any difference?

[rebeccajo 14]

well that sucks. my partner earns enough to be over the poverty level but i was hoping that the value of my house would help too. i own it outright, do you think that would make any difference?

If they earn over the poverty level, why worry about it?

[rocks 494]

well that sucks. my partner earns enough to be over the poverty level but i was hoping that the value of my house would help too. i own it outright, do you think that would make any difference?

If they earn over the poverty level, why worry about it?

it's mostly because i'm not working at the moment and i know that doesn't look good to them on my part.

[English Muffin 59]

it's mostly because i'm not working at the moment and i know that doesn't look good to them on my part.

Are you the petitioner or the beneficiary?

[rocks 494]

it's mostly because i'm not working at the moment and i know that doesn't look good to them on my part.

Are you the petitioner or the beneficiary?

i'm the beneficiary. i intend on taking money with me to the states as a partial loan against the value of my house (in lieu of its sale) in order that i can afford to live and such. do you think this wouldn't be of interest to them? does anyone know if i am going to have problems bringing in large (ish) sums of money? this is all so complicated!