Poverty Line and unemployment

[Old Dominion 26]

The OP is looking for a fail-safe solution, and that is to have a co-sponsor. There will be lots of questions like this, and who wants to take a risk on being denied the chance to marry happily? Maybe the Dept.of State will adjust its expectations in view of the massive layoffs and business closings, but I don't see why. Their intent is to be reasonably sure that our welfare rolls don't grow as the result of immigration.

[Anh map 2,098]

Very true. It will be interesting to see what happens with the embassies/consulates that don't consider co-sponsors.

Perhaps that will help to weed out the frauds that make it more difficult for the legit cases.

Stay tuned for further developments.

[Mags 112]

It's unfortunate the OP didn't execute the I-134 the week before he became unemployed.

So, what purpose does this post serve the OP, Pushbrk?

Whatever purpose anybody wants it to serve, I guess. What purpose does your question serve?

It's pointing out that your comment only served to be rather tasteless considering the OP's situation.

Perhaps you should think twice about the context in which your comments might be taken in the future. Forethought is useful.

[pushbrk 12,898]

It's unfortunate the OP didn't execute the I-134 the week before he became unemployed.

So, what purpose does this post serve the OP, Pushbrk?

Whatever purpose anybody wants it to serve, I guess. What purpose does your question serve?

It's pointing out that your comment only served to be rather tasteless considering the OP's situation.

Perhaps you should think twice about the context in which your comments might be taken in the future. Forethought is useful.

You're free to say so. When you do, I think most people see it as off-topic scolding. I find a lot of things here tastless, not the least of which is this exchange.

[Mags 112]

It's unfortunate the OP didn't execute the I-134 the week before he became unemployed.

So, what purpose does this post serve the OP, Pushbrk?

Whatever purpose anybody wants it to serve, I guess. What purpose does your question serve?

It's pointing out that your comment only served to be rather tasteless considering the OP's situation.

Perhaps you should think twice about the context in which your comments might be taken in the future. Forethought is useful.

You're free to say so. When you do, I think most people see it as off-topic scolding. I find a lot of things here tastless, not the least of which is this exchange.

It was a mild warning, Pushbrk, to please be careful of post phrasing.

Anyway, back to topic now, please.

[dagnytaggart 0]

Ok so assuming I do find a job but it's after the interview and my fiancé had to use the co-sponsor. Can the co-sponsor be removed of responsibility and me put at his full sponsor?

[pushbrk 12,898]

Ok so assuming I do find a job but it's after the interview and my fiancé had to use the co-sponsor. Can the co-sponsor be removed of responsibility and me put at his full sponsor?

Since the I-134 itself isn't binding, yes. When the adjustment of status is filed, you would file the binding I-864 without a joint sponsor.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Ok so assuming I do find a job but it's after the interview and my fiancé had to use the co-sponsor. Can the co-sponsor be removed of responsibility and me put at his full sponsor?

Yes and no. You will have to complete an I-864 for the AOS which supercedes the I-134 and is actuallyu an enforceable contract with the government. If you have secured employment by then and you do not need a co-sponsor, your I-134s fade into obsolesence.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The OP is looking for a fail-safe solution, and that is to have a co-sponsor. There will be lots of questions like this, and who wants to take a risk on being denied the chance to marry happily? Maybe the Dept.of State will adjust its expectations in view of the massive layoffs and business closings, but I don't see why. Their intent is to be reasonably sure that our welfare rolls don't grow as the result of immigration.

An interesting topic for banter. The I-134 really only covers the time period before AOS, then the enforceable contract of the I-864 takes over. This really, as I see it, ijust the governments assurance that they can deny public welfare if it is applied for have someone to go after fro reimbursement. Their "a$$ is covered" so to speak. It is, in my opinion, only a "relase of liability" of sorts.

Lets face it (and forget even the unique economic situation we currently face) who can guarantee anything at any time? I mean I just read about a multi-millionaire ripped off by Bernard Madoff who is now bagging groceries for $10 an hour! Who knows what evil lurks in the economy? In the case discussed here, the OP gets laid off just before the interview. Really sucks. But what if she (note I said "She") got laid off the day after the green card interview? Then what? I see the situation as being the same, she has guaranteed the government her fiance will not collect welfare, they are satisfied and the next day she is laid off and applies for welfare. What happens? They say "NO" and wave the contract under your nose.

Were I the government (horror!) I would say "OK, you have income, my a$$ is covered, good luck with that!" But I dno't know if that is how it works. Yes, it is better to have a co-sponsor in this case, why not? My personal situation has changed twice since I filed the petition, fortunately I am still well above the guidelines and employed and now I have to do another I-134 and I-864 this summer for my wife's older son who will now follow us here and both of them will be different than what I filed before. I mean if someone were to compare them, they could say something is not truthful, but they are all exactly truthful AT THE TIME I prepared them. And who knows if things will change before May or July. It seems stable for now, but who knows, really?

If the procedure is, as I suspect, a CYA kind of thing, then I see no reason they would not accept unemployment income as income. If it is big brother trying to determine your economic future based on today's "snapshot" of conditions, then they have a better crystal ball than me

[pushbrk 12,898]

The OP is looking for a fail-safe solution, and that is to have a co-sponsor. There will be lots of questions like this, and who wants to take a risk on being denied the chance to marry happily? Maybe the Dept.of State will adjust its expectations in view of the massive layoffs and business closings, but I don't see why. Their intent is to be reasonably sure that our welfare rolls don't grow as the result of immigration.

An interesting topic for banter. The I-134 really only covers the time period before AOS, then the enforceable contract of the I-864 takes over. This really, as I see it, ijust the governments assurance that they can deny public welfare if it is applied for have someone to go after fro reimbursement. Their "a$$ is covered" so to speak. It is, in my opinion, only a "relase of liability" of sorts.

Lets face it (and forget even the unique economic situation we currently face) who can guarantee anything at any time? I mean I just read about a multi-millionaire ripped off by Bernard Madoff who is now bagging groceries for $10 an hour! Who knows what evil lurks in the economy? In the case discussed here, the OP gets laid off just before the interview. Really sucks. But what if she (note I said "She") got laid off the day after the green card interview? Then what? I see the situation as being the same, she has guaranteed the government her fiance will not collect welfare, they are satisfied and the next day she is laid off and applies for welfare. What happens? They say "NO" and wave the contract under your nose.

Were I the government (horror!) I would say "OK, you have income, my a$$ is covered, good luck with that!" But I dno't know if that is how it works. Yes, it is better to have a co-sponsor in this case, why not? My personal situation has changed twice since I filed the petition, fortunately I am still well above the guidelines and employed and now I have to do another I-134 and I-864 this summer for my wife's older son who will now follow us here and both of them will be different than what I filed before. I mean if someone were to compare them, they could say something is not truthful, but they are all exactly truthful AT THE TIME I prepared them. And who knows if things will change before May or July. It seems stable for now, but who knows, really?

If the procedure is, as I suspect, a CYA kind of thing, then I see no reason they would not accept unemployment income as income. If it is big brother trying to determine your economic future based on today's "snapshot" of conditions, then they have a better crystal ball than me

Two things. They don't deny welfare. They seek reimbursement. I don't know whether a given Consular Officer or USCIS adjudicator will accept unemployment as sole income on any affidavit of support. What I do not is that whether they do or not and why is not has nothing to do with whether you see any reason for their decision. As I said before, your arguments seem logical enough but so to those from the other side. If argued before an immigration judge, I would see the ruling in support of disqualification if for no other reason than that the acceptance of a clearly temporary source of income, is inconsistent with the requirement to have three years covered with assets when assets are used.

All that said, I could certainly see the potential of a different outcome for an out of work unskilled 20 year old dropout formerly earning $25,000 a year for one year as compared to a 35 year old software engineer with long term steady employment and three years of tax returns showing many times the poverty line in income, owns a home for 10 years etc. It's a somewhat subjective judgment call and the result is going to be up to the individual making the judgment unless there are specific prohibitions against accepting certain things.

It does seem unfair that becoming unemployed just before instead of just after executing an affidavit can have such drastically different results but there do have to be some kind of timeliness standard for affidavits of support or they would become meaningless.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The OP is looking for a fail-safe solution, and that is to have a co-sponsor. There will be lots of questions like this, and who wants to take a risk on being denied the chance to marry happily? Maybe the Dept.of State will adjust its expectations in view of the massive layoffs and business closings, but I don't see why. Their intent is to be reasonably sure that our welfare rolls don't grow as the result of immigration.

An interesting topic for banter. The I-134 really only covers the time period before AOS, then the enforceable contract of the I-864 takes over. This really, as I see it, ijust the governments assurance that they can deny public welfare if it is applied for have someone to go after fro reimbursement. Their "a$$ is covered" so to speak. It is, in my opinion, only a "relase of liability" of sorts.

Lets face it (and forget even the unique economic situation we currently face) who can guarantee anything at any time? I mean I just read about a multi-millionaire ripped off by Bernard Madoff who is now bagging groceries for $10 an hour! Who knows what evil lurks in the economy? In the case discussed here, the OP gets laid off just before the interview. Really sucks. But what if she (note I said "She") got laid off the day after the green card interview? Then what? I see the situation as being the same, she has guaranteed the government her fiance will not collect welfare, they are satisfied and the next day she is laid off and applies for welfare. What happens? They say "NO" and wave the contract under your nose.

Were I the government (horror!) I would say "OK, you have income, my a$$ is covered, good luck with that!" But I dno't know if that is how it works. Yes, it is better to have a co-sponsor in this case, why not? My personal situation has changed twice since I filed the petition, fortunately I am still well above the guidelines and employed and now I have to do another I-134 and I-864 this summer for my wife's older son who will now follow us here and both of them will be different than what I filed before. I mean if someone were to compare them, they could say something is not truthful, but they are all exactly truthful AT THE TIME I prepared them. And who knows if things will change before May or July. It seems stable for now, but who knows, really?

If the procedure is, as I suspect, a CYA kind of thing, then I see no reason they would not accept unemployment income as income. If it is big brother trying to determine your economic future based on today's "snapshot" of conditions, then they have a better crystal ball than me

Two things. They don't deny welfare. They seek reimbursement. I don't know whether a given Consular Officer or USCIS adjudicator will accept unemployment as sole income on any affidavit of support. What I do not is that whether they do or not and why is not has nothing to do with whether you see any reason for their decision. As I said before, your arguments seem logical enough but so to those from the other side. If argued before an immigration judge, I would see the ruling in support of disqualification if for no other reason than that the acceptance of a clearly temporary source of income, is inconsistent with the requirement to have three years covered with assets when assets are used.

All that said, I could certainly see the potential of a different outcome for an out of work unskilled 20 year old dropout formerly earning $25,000 a year for one year as compared to a 35 year old software engineer with long term steady employment and three years of tax returns showing many times the poverty line in income, owns a home for 10 years etc. It's a somewhat subjective judgment call and the result is going to be up to the individual making the judgment unless there are specific prohibitions against accepting certain things.

It does seem unfair that becoming unemployed just before instead of just after executing an affidavit can have such drastically different results but there do have to be some kind of timeliness standard for affidavits of support or they would become meaningless.

Good point that unemployment is "clearly temporary" while regular jobs are maybe temporary. Anyway it is all the same as arguing the number of spirits that can dance on the head of a pin, which can get really "spirited" but reather pointless. The OP is surely best to get a co-sponsor, then quickly run back here to VJ and let us know what happens.

If I were filling out an I-134 today, and had been unemployed for a period prior to that, and now was employed, I would not hesitate for a moment to claim the unemployment as income (As I would have to on my 1040) but if it is all you have at the moment, I wouldn't be comfortable presenting it on its own, you are correct about that.

[pushbrk 12,898]

The OP is looking for a fail-safe solution, and that is to have a co-sponsor. There will be lots of questions like this, and who wants to take a risk on being denied the chance to marry happily? Maybe the Dept.of State will adjust its expectations in view of the massive layoffs and business closings, but I don't see why. Their intent is to be reasonably sure that our welfare rolls don't grow as the result of immigration.

An interesting topic for banter. The I-134 really only covers the time period before AOS, then the enforceable contract of the I-864 takes over. This really, as I see it, ijust the governments assurance that they can deny public welfare if it is applied for have someone to go after fro reimbursement. Their "a$$ is covered" so to speak. It is, in my opinion, only a "relase of liability" of sorts.

Lets face it (and forget even the unique economic situation we currently face) who can guarantee anything at any time? I mean I just read about a multi-millionaire ripped off by Bernard Madoff who is now bagging groceries for $10 an hour! Who knows what evil lurks in the economy? In the case discussed here, the OP gets laid off just before the interview. Really sucks. But what if she (note I said "She") got laid off the day after the green card interview? Then what? I see the situation as being the same, she has guaranteed the government her fiance will not collect welfare, they are satisfied and the next day she is laid off and applies for welfare. What happens? They say "NO" and wave the contract under your nose.

Were I the government (horror!) I would say "OK, you have income, my a$$ is covered, good luck with that!" But I dno't know if that is how it works. Yes, it is better to have a co-sponsor in this case, why not? My personal situation has changed twice since I filed the petition, fortunately I am still well above the guidelines and employed and now I have to do another I-134 and I-864 this summer for my wife's older son who will now follow us here and both of them will be different than what I filed before. I mean if someone were to compare them, they could say something is not truthful, but they are all exactly truthful AT THE TIME I prepared them. And who knows if things will change before May or July. It seems stable for now, but who knows, really?

If the procedure is, as I suspect, a CYA kind of thing, then I see no reason they would not accept unemployment income as income. If it is big brother trying to determine your economic future based on today's "snapshot" of conditions, then they have a better crystal ball than me

Two things. They don't deny welfare. They seek reimbursement. I don't know whether a given Consular Officer or USCIS adjudicator will accept unemployment as sole income on any affidavit of support. What I do not is that whether they do or not and why is not has nothing to do with whether you see any reason for their decision. As I said before, your arguments seem logical enough but so to those from the other side. If argued before an immigration judge, I would see the ruling in support of disqualification if for no other reason than that the acceptance of a clearly temporary source of income, is inconsistent with the requirement to have three years covered with assets when assets are used.

All that said, I could certainly see the potential of a different outcome for an out of work unskilled 20 year old dropout formerly earning $25,000 a year for one year as compared to a 35 year old software engineer with long term steady employment and three years of tax returns showing many times the poverty line in income, owns a home for 10 years etc. It's a somewhat subjective judgment call and the result is going to be up to the individual making the judgment unless there are specific prohibitions against accepting certain things.

It does seem unfair that becoming unemployed just before instead of just after executing an affidavit can have such drastically different results but there do have to be some kind of timeliness standard for affidavits of support or they would become meaningless.

Good point that unemployment is "clearly temporary" while regular jobs are maybe temporary. Anyway it is all the same as arguing the number of spirits that can dance on the head of a pin, which can get really "spirited" but reather pointless. The OP is surely best to get a co-sponsor, then quickly run back here to VJ and let us know what happens.

If I were filling out an I-134 today, and had been unemployed for a period prior to that, and now was employed, I would not hesitate for a moment to claim the unemployment as income (As I would have to on my 1040) but if it is all you have at the moment, I wouldn't be comfortable presenting it on its own, you are correct about that.

Ouch, no I would hesitate to include past unemployment because if you look at the I-134 your are filling in the amount as part of a sentence indicating "I derive an annual income of..." which is a present tense statement. While it is certainly appropriate for many people to use line 22 of the most recent 1040, as discussed recently, (those with stable income clearly over the requirement) it is certainly appropriate for others to annualize their "current income" instead. This could be because they got a raise, got their first job after college, upgraded employment or any number of other reasons. The statement about income one derives needs to be true in the present tense as of the signature date as the affidavit is signed under penalty of perjury.

While you and I can courteously debate the fine points, another poster in this thread has made a strong assertion that unemployment is "income" so there should be no need for a co-sponsor. I think we've managed to successfully discourage anybody from actually trying that unless it's their only option.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The OP is looking for a fail-safe solution, and that is to have a co-sponsor. There will be lots of questions like this, and who wants to take a risk on being denied the chance to marry happily? Maybe the Dept.of State will adjust its expectations in view of the massive layoffs and business closings, but I don't see why. Their intent is to be reasonably sure that our welfare rolls don't grow as the result of immigration.

An interesting topic for banter. The I-134 really only covers the time period before AOS, then the enforceable contract of the I-864 takes over. This really, as I see it, ijust the governments assurance that they can deny public welfare if it is applied for have someone to go after fro reimbursement. Their "a$$ is covered" so to speak. It is, in my opinion, only a "relase of liability" of sorts.

Lets face it (and forget even the unique economic situation we currently face) who can guarantee anything at any time? I mean I just read about a multi-millionaire ripped off by Bernard Madoff who is now bagging groceries for $10 an hour! Who knows what evil lurks in the economy? In the case discussed here, the OP gets laid off just before the interview. Really sucks. But what if she (note I said "She") got laid off the day after the green card interview? Then what? I see the situation as being the same, she has guaranteed the government her fiance will not collect welfare, they are satisfied and the next day she is laid off and applies for welfare. What happens? They say "NO" and wave the contract under your nose.

Were I the government (horror!) I would say "OK, you have income, my a$$ is covered, good luck with that!" But I dno't know if that is how it works. Yes, it is better to have a co-sponsor in this case, why not? My personal situation has changed twice since I filed the petition, fortunately I am still well above the guidelines and employed and now I have to do another I-134 and I-864 this summer for my wife's older son who will now follow us here and both of them will be different than what I filed before. I mean if someone were to compare them, they could say something is not truthful, but they are all exactly truthful AT THE TIME I prepared them. And who knows if things will change before May or July. It seems stable for now, but who knows, really?

If the procedure is, as I suspect, a CYA kind of thing, then I see no reason they would not accept unemployment income as income. If it is big brother trying to determine your economic future based on today's "snapshot" of conditions, then they have a better crystal ball than me

Two things. They don't deny welfare. They seek reimbursement. I don't know whether a given Consular Officer or USCIS adjudicator will accept unemployment as sole income on any affidavit of support. What I do not is that whether they do or not and why is not has nothing to do with whether you see any reason for their decision. As I said before, your arguments seem logical enough but so to those from the other side. If argued before an immigration judge, I would see the ruling in support of disqualification if for no other reason than that the acceptance of a clearly temporary source of income, is inconsistent with the requirement to have three years covered with assets when assets are used.

All that said, I could certainly see the potential of a different outcome for an out of work unskilled 20 year old dropout formerly earning $25,000 a year for one year as compared to a 35 year old software engineer with long term steady employment and three years of tax returns showing many times the poverty line in income, owns a home for 10 years etc. It's a somewhat subjective judgment call and the result is going to be up to the individual making the judgment unless there are specific prohibitions against accepting certain things.

It does seem unfair that becoming unemployed just before instead of just after executing an affidavit can have such drastically different results but there do have to be some kind of timeliness standard for affidavits of support or they would become meaningless.

Good point that unemployment is "clearly temporary" while regular jobs are maybe temporary. Anyway it is all the same as arguing the number of spirits that can dance on the head of a pin, which can get really "spirited" but reather pointless. The OP is surely best to get a co-sponsor, then quickly run back here to VJ and let us know what happens.

If I were filling out an I-134 today, and had been unemployed for a period prior to that, and now was employed, I would not hesitate for a moment to claim the unemployment as income (As I would have to on my 1040) but if it is all you have at the moment, I wouldn't be comfortable presenting it on its own, you are correct about that.

Ouch, no I would hesitate to include past unemployment because if you look at the I-134 your are filling in the amount as part of a sentence indicating "I derive an annual income of..." which is a present tense statement. While it is certainly appropriate for many people to use line 22 of the most recent 1040, as discussed recently, (those with stable income clearly over the requirement) it is certainly appropriate for others to annualize their "current income" instead. This could be because they got a raise, got their first job after college, upgraded employment or any number of other reasons. The statement about income one derives needs to be true in the present tense as of the signature date as the affidavit is signed under penalty of perjury.

While you and I can courteously debate the fine points, another poster in this thread has made a strong assertion that unemployment is "income" so there should be no need for a co-sponsor. I think we've managed to successfully discourage anybody from actually trying that unless it's their only option.

C'mon Push. YOU are always courteous.

Maybe you misunderstood. Yes the "I derive an income of______" is definitely present tense, I always took it that way, so it is what I make TODAY, which may be more than a month ago, etc. So I guess I really wouldn't be claiming unemployment in the past as "current income" but it would be on my tax return. I contend unemployment IS income (you have to claim it and pay tax) but I would not boldly say "go without a co-sponsor". I would sincerely hope someone with a good work record could be approved while on unemployment, but personally I wouldn't risk my family's future on it.

[pushbrk 12,898]

The OP is looking for a fail-safe solution, and that is to have a co-sponsor. There will be lots of questions like this, and who wants to take a risk on being denied the chance to marry happily? Maybe the Dept.of State will adjust its expectations in view of the massive layoffs and business closings, but I don't see why. Their intent is to be reasonably sure that our welfare rolls don't grow as the result of immigration.

An interesting topic for banter. The I-134 really only covers the time period before AOS, then the enforceable contract of the I-864 takes over. This really, as I see it, ijust the governments assurance that they can deny public welfare if it is applied for have someone to go after fro reimbursement. Their "a$$ is covered" so to speak. It is, in my opinion, only a "relase of liability" of sorts.

Lets face it (and forget even the unique economic situation we currently face) who can guarantee anything at any time? I mean I just read about a multi-millionaire ripped off by Bernard Madoff who is now bagging groceries for $10 an hour! Who knows what evil lurks in the economy? In the case discussed here, the OP gets laid off just before the interview. Really sucks. But what if she (note I said "She") got laid off the day after the green card interview? Then what? I see the situation as being the same, she has guaranteed the government her fiance will not collect welfare, they are satisfied and the next day she is laid off and applies for welfare. What happens? They say "NO" and wave the contract under your nose.

Were I the government (horror!) I would say "OK, you have income, my a$$ is covered, good luck with that!" But I dno't know if that is how it works. Yes, it is better to have a co-sponsor in this case, why not? My personal situation has changed twice since I filed the petition, fortunately I am still well above the guidelines and employed and now I have to do another I-134 and I-864 this summer for my wife's older son who will now follow us here and both of them will be different than what I filed before. I mean if someone were to compare them, they could say something is not truthful, but they are all exactly truthful AT THE TIME I prepared them. And who knows if things will change before May or July. It seems stable for now, but who knows, really?

If the procedure is, as I suspect, a CYA kind of thing, then I see no reason they would not accept unemployment income as income. If it is big brother trying to determine your economic future based on today's "snapshot" of conditions, then they have a better crystal ball than me

Two things. They don't deny welfare. They seek reimbursement. I don't know whether a given Consular Officer or USCIS adjudicator will accept unemployment as sole income on any affidavit of support. What I do not is that whether they do or not and why is not has nothing to do with whether you see any reason for their decision. As I said before, your arguments seem logical enough but so to those from the other side. If argued before an immigration judge, I would see the ruling in support of disqualification if for no other reason than that the acceptance of a clearly temporary source of income, is inconsistent with the requirement to have three years covered with assets when assets are used.

All that said, I could certainly see the potential of a different outcome for an out of work unskilled 20 year old dropout formerly earning $25,000 a year for one year as compared to a 35 year old software engineer with long term steady employment and three years of tax returns showing many times the poverty line in income, owns a home for 10 years etc. It's a somewhat subjective judgment call and the result is going to be up to the individual making the judgment unless there are specific prohibitions against accepting certain things.

It does seem unfair that becoming unemployed just before instead of just after executing an affidavit can have such drastically different results but there do have to be some kind of timeliness standard for affidavits of support or they would become meaningless.

Good point that unemployment is "clearly temporary" while regular jobs are maybe temporary. Anyway it is all the same as arguing the number of spirits that can dance on the head of a pin, which can get really "spirited" but reather pointless. The OP is surely best to get a co-sponsor, then quickly run back here to VJ and let us know what happens.

If I were filling out an I-134 today, and had been unemployed for a period prior to that, and now was employed, I would not hesitate for a moment to claim the unemployment as income (As I would have to on my 1040) but if it is all you have at the moment, I wouldn't be comfortable presenting it on its own, you are correct about that.

Ouch, no I would hesitate to include past unemployment because if you look at the I-134 your are filling in the amount as part of a sentence indicating "I derive an annual income of..." which is a present tense statement. While it is certainly appropriate for many people to use line 22 of the most recent 1040, as discussed recently, (those with stable income clearly over the requirement) it is certainly appropriate for others to annualize their "current income" instead. This could be because they got a raise, got their first job after college, upgraded employment or any number of other reasons. The statement about income one derives needs to be true in the present tense as of the signature date as the affidavit is signed under penalty of perjury.

While you and I can courteously debate the fine points, another poster in this thread has made a strong assertion that unemployment is "income" so there should be no need for a co-sponsor. I think we've managed to successfully discourage anybody from actually trying that unless it's their only option.

C'mon Push. YOU are always courteous.

Maybe you misunderstood. Yes the "I derive an income of______" is definitely present tense, I always took it that way, so it is what I make TODAY, which may be more than a month ago, etc. So I guess I really wouldn't be claiming unemployment in the past as "current income" but it would be on my tax return. I contend unemployment IS income (you have to claim it and pay tax) but I would not boldly say "go without a co-sponsor". I would sincerely hope someone with a good work record could be approved while on unemployment, but personally I wouldn't risk my family's future on it.

I guess I misunderstood your use of "claim". Of course you claim your unemployment compensation as income on your tax return and if asked for your gross income last year, you would include any unemployment income in that answer. The other way you "claim" it for income in this context is in that present tense "I derive..." statement. Only if currently drawing unemployment, would you "claim" it there. In that case, we're on the same page in recommending a co-sponsor if at all possible.

What I'm saying is sure, unemployment is income but it is likely to be of little or no use in qualifying to sponsor an immigrant.