Proving domicile when not living in the U.S.

[karimaelo 0]

Very interesting and helpful thread over here. I am also facing the same problem here. My wife is a U.S. citizen, she's been once to the U.S. to get her citizenship. We both live in Dubai. I am her sponsor here in Dubai. She is currently a student at a university. She has zero income. I am at sending AOS package stage. I have my uncle as a joint sponsor.

What shall I provide as her domicile!!!

And do I have to provide a letter from university stating that she is still a student?

[rawkus212 0]

Just a quick question. Does rental/apartment lease have to be notarized when you submit them to a CO?

[NikLR 13,228]

Just a quick question. Does rental/apartment lease have to be notarized when you submit them to a CO?

no

[canuckmoran 7]

Good morning everyone.

My wife (USC) and I who are both living in Canada just received notification that out I-130 has been approved. So we are looking through the next steps. Since my wife is living with me, we are looking at all options that doesn't include her moving down before we file the I-864. With that in mind it appears that re-establishing domicile is the only way we can do that.

So just a couple of question regarding proof of re-establishment, which I am sure has been asked many times before, but I don't want to siff through many many pages of postings, so here they are.

1) My in-laws who live in Minnesota, but have a rental property in Chicago (where we intend to reside), have a lease drawn up by an attorney between us and them, would this qualify as a piece of evidence?

2) She has filed US tax returns while residing up here, does this help?

3) Submitting her Illinois state id?

4) Inquiring with a moving company?

5) We don' have kids so contacting a school doesn't apply.

6) If there is enough money in our bank account (125% above the poverty line) does that help?

If all this fails or is not enouugh, would having her parents be join sponsors on the I-864 help or be enough.

Looking forward to hearing some replies.

Edited August 29, 2014 by canuckmoran

[gad33 47]

Formal rental agreement is wonderful.

Every sponsor has to show proof of tax returns regardless of where they live. has she requested transcripts (or whatever not sure exactly what it is you have to send in)

Having enough money in bank account means you don't have to have co-sponser. Is this in Candian or US dollars?

[canuckmoran 7]

Formal rental agreement is wonderful.

Every sponsor has to show proof of tax returns regardless of where they live. has she requested transcripts (or whatever not sure exactly what it is you have to send in)

Having enough money in bank account means you don't have to have co-sponser. Is this in Candian or US dollars?

HI gad33.

Thanks for your reply.

Good to hear about the rental agreement - this wouldn't be an issue.

We would transfer the funds into my wife's activie US Bank Account from our Canadian account.

Do you know if my wife does have to move back how soon we can file the I-864?

Thanks,

RIchard

[gad33 47]

Sorry for the delay in relying, an influx of visitors curtailed by computer time.

When you submit the I-864 is when you provide proof to reestablish domicile. There is a list on the government website which shows what is required. It is Montreal that is really picky about what they will accept - they want a formal rental agreement or the USC to have a job.

[NikLR 13,228]

HI gad33.

Thanks for your reply.

Good to hear about the rental agreement - this wouldn't be an issue.

We would transfer the funds into my wife's activie US Bank Account from our Canadian account.

Do you know if my wife does have to move back how soon we can file the I-864?

Thanks,

RIchard

Where are you in the process?

Domicile is mostly proved by interview. It's great if you have the proof by the time of the I-864 submit to the NVC but in reality you have until the interview.

[scottishlander 5]

I am confused. If you send your AOS (I-864) to the NVC and it looks good to them, can the interviewer at the Montreal consulate still say it's not good enough?

Or does the Montreal interviewer only have a say if you are going the DCF route (which I didn't think was still available to Canadians)?

Edited September 20, 2014 by scottishlander

[gad33 47]

Yes.

NVC want proof that you are intending to reestablish domicile with items as listed on the government website. Montreal would be happiest if the USC was actually back living in the US. Whereas most consulates at interview stage accept the statement, "we're going to be living with my in-laws until we find a place of our own", Montreal wants everything formalized. What saved us was a letter from my husband's employer regarding his employment in the US, including address and salary.

Although this was included in the package I had an extra copy which was a good thing because I had to produce it at the interview as the first thing the interviewer said to me was "I haven't read your file" and she wasn't going to be looking for anything - and mine wasn't a big file.

[NikLR 13,228]

I am confused. If you send your AOS (I-864) to the NVC and it looks good to them, can the interviewer at the Montreal consulate still say it's not good enough?

Or does the Montreal interviewer only have a say if you are going the DCF route (which I didn't think was still available to Canadians)?

The NVC only accepts documents and checks them for correctness and makes sure you have everything you need. They do not approve or deny anything, that is up to the CO (consular officer) at interview.

[scottishlander 5]

I agree that there needs to be more transparency - absolutely no question about that. If they are now taking a different line because of the economy - they need to let us know, it shouldn't be some well guarded secret.

Personally, I think the 'open ended' portion of the guidelines for reestablishing are located in item 5, below. When I read that I see that they are given some leeway - it looks to me like the intent is for the CO to be able to look at someones situation and say - this seems reasonable. It says - "at a minimum must satisfy you". So CO, look at the paperwork, does that seem reasonable to you - yes it does - then they are good to go. However it appears it is used in exactly the opposite way.

A petitioner living abroad not meeting the criteria in 9 FAM 40.41 N6.1-1 who wishes to qualify as a sponsor must satisfy you:

(4) The sponsor must establish an address (a house, an apartment, or arrangements for accommodations with family or friend) and either must have already taken up physical residence in the United States;

or

(5) Must at a minimum to satisfy you that he or she intends to take up residence there no later than the time of the applicant’s immigration to the United States.

So in reading item 5, that's the portion that the COs in Montreal seem to be paying the most attention to and overstepping the leeway given there (in my opinion). It's talking about a minimum there, not saying - they must satisfy you of their intent - and it's a free for all as to what you can require them to do, like:

1. Insisting they move back to the U.S. before their spouse

2. Give up their Canadian Permanent Residency

It goes on to say what that proof should be:

Evidence that the sponsor has established a domicile in the United States and is either physically residing there or intends to do so before or concurrently with the applicant include the following:

(1) Opening a bank account;

(2) Transferring funds to the United States;

(3) Making investments in the United States;

(4) Seeking employment in the United States;

(5) Registering children in U.S. schools;

(6) Applying for a social security number; and

(7) Voting in local, state or federal elections.

However people who have met all of those items, including the lease as stated earlier - are still denied.

My only concern (and Jones this doesn't apply to you now) is that people confuse the different types of domicile and attempt to prove something they cannot prove (like already being domiciled when they are not) and the waters get a little muddy. We don't have enough information about each individual case to get a really clear picture of exactly what is going on here.

We have had several cases where the applicants tried to prove that they were already domiciled in the U.S. or that they were only out of the U.S. 'temporarily' - when in fact they were not and should have been trying to prove reestablishing domicile.

My wife and I live in Canada and are not claiming US domicile. Our domicile is Canada. We are claiming that we intend to establish a domcile in the US.

It sounds like some officers believe that the sponsor must establish an address but with the OR it sounds like it's perfectly valid to load up a moving truck and cross the border to set up your domicile, e.g., look for a house or apartment while you stay somewhere temporarily. That is, you are entering the US with your spouse with the intent to establish a domicile.

The evidence that they say is sufficient for establishing intent doesn't include a lease! Obviously it's all about intent to establish a domicile when you cross the border and not about already having a domicile established.

Will they still want to see a lease even if you aren't claiming US domicile but only intent to establish?

What option realistically do you have if they insist on seeing a lease and ongoing rental or mortgage payments?

Edited September 21, 2014 by scottishlander

[gad33 47]

Think of it this way.

The NVC wants to know that you are intending to reestablish domicile before they process your case and pass it on to the consulate for interview scheduling.

The consulate wants to know where the intended immigrant is going to be living before they grant a visa which will allow them into the country.

The difference between Montreal and other consulates is that whereas in other countries it may be accepted to say, we'll be staying with friends/family until we find our own place, Montreal has wanted to see a formal lease type document.

What you cannot do is say that we're going to find somewhere to live when we cross the border, because as much as we'd all like to have done that, it's just not going to get you a visa.

[scottishlander 5]

Think of it this way.

The NVC wants to know that you are intending to reestablish domicile before they process your case and pass it on to the consulate for interview scheduling.

The consulate wants to know where the intended immigrant is going to be living before they grant a visa which will allow them into the country.

The difference between Montreal and other consulates is that whereas in other countries it may be accepted to say, we'll be staying with friends/family until we find our own place, Montreal has wanted to see a formal lease type document.

What you cannot do is say that we're going to find somewhere to live when we cross the border, because as much as we'd all like to have done that, it's just not going to get you a visa.

Thanks! Finding a permanent place once we cross the border is pretty much what we were planning on doing. We were going to book a long-term hotel and put our stuff in storage.

At the NVC stage would they reject that plan?

Should we change our domicile support documents to state we plan on making a trip down to lease an apartment before the interview?

Based on what I've read here, it would be ideal to have an accepted job (with salary and start date letter) and a signed lease with money down prior to the interview. My concern is that the interview could be a while off at some unknown date. We are at the AOS submitting stage and aren't ready with a job offer and signed lease! There are really a lot of moving parts and leaps of faith for USC ex-pats.

Edited September 22, 2014 by scottishlander

[scottishlander 5]

Thanks! Finding a permanent place once we cross the border is pretty much what we were planning on doing. We were going to book a long-term hotel and put our stuff in storage.

At the NVC stage would they reject that plan?

Should we change our domicile support documents to state we plan on making a trip down to lease an apartment before the interview?

Based on what I've read here, it would be ideal to have an accepted job (with salary and start date letter) and a signed lease with money down prior to the interview. My concern is that the interview could be a while off at some unknown date. We are at the AOS submitting stage and aren't ready with a job offer and signed lease! There are really a lot of moving parts and leaps of faith for USC ex-pats.

I can no longer edit so...

To clarify, do you have to have a US address backed by a lease at the NVC AOS submission step?