a questions about child support payments and the I-134

[pushbrk 12,883]

This is a bad analysis, IMO. Child support is for supporting children. Children are part of any household size in these cases, so the custodial parent's child support (court ordered) payments are appropriately considered as part of the petitioner's "income" and can be considered in any way a CO deems appropriate as they evaluate the totality of circumstances.

On the other hand, a CO could reasonably consider what would happen if the child support payments stopped, by loss of custody, loss of the ability for the non-custodial parent to continue paying or any other factors deemed appropriate. Any ultimate decision would vary with the CO and the totality of the circumstances.

Wow. Using child support to sponsor some guy from another country <shakes head>

Speaking from personal, and common experience with the I134/I864 and what they asked for and looked at (we got interviewed at both stages). There is no line on the I134 or I864 for "child support" as either income or a liability.

Income by the embassy definition /CIS definition in our case was pay stubs, W-2's, employment letters, bank statements, and tax returns. The household size of the supporting parent (me) included the children I support. Since they don't SUBTRACT child support from income for the supporting parent, does it make sense that they would ADD it for the receiving parent? Please try not to consider what they should or shouldnt do, but I am not aware of any cases where child support was taken into account either way. Income (at least at our interviews) was income that was on MY tax return. Not income that was on someone else's tax return showing that said someone else could support their own children and show that they can be responsible for doing so.

1.Can Child Support count for your yearly income for the I-134.

2. Do you add it w/your job's income and put the total on that line of the I-134?

[pushbrk 12,883]

None of that precludes child support from being considered. Court ordered child support is, in fact, routinely "considered" in evaluating the public charge concern. People who would not otherwise qualify are commonly approved after such consideration but not always.

Wow. Using child support to sponsor some guy from another country <shakes head>

Speaking from personal, and common experience with the I134/I864 and what they asked for and looked at (we got interviewed at both stages). There is no line on the I134 or I864 for "child support" as either income or a liability.

Income by the embassy definition /CIS definition in our case was pay stubs, W-2's, employment letters, bank statements, and tax returns. The household size of the supporting parent (me) included the children I support. Since they don't SUBTRACT child support from income for the supporting parent, does it make sense that they would ADD it for the receiving parent? Please try not to consider what they should or shouldnt do, but I am not aware of any cases where child support was taken into account either way. Income (at least at our interviews) was income that was on MY tax return. Not income that was on someone else's tax return showing that said someone else could support their own children and show that they can be responsible for doing so.

1.Can Child Support count for your yearly income for the I-134.

2. Do you add it w/your job's income and put the total on that line of the I-134?

[rebeccajo 14]

Once again, adding useful information for the OP is what VJ is all about.

Take the personal debates, that (always) derail threads, offline.

William -

If you are going to delete TWO rather innocuous posts of mine, how about deleting the made-up generalities of others?

I'm not going to stand idly by and allow a member, no matter how much clout they think they have, to allow readers to believe that CO's apply some mythical standard of earned income to the financials.

Income is income. If it can be proven it can be used. A sponsor's entire income could consist of child support, and if it's verifiable and steady, an affidavit can be approved. It is bogus to wave around the words 'totality of circumstance' to lend stigma to a category of income. That is WRONG.

Nobody said an affidavit cannot be approved using child support. I said the CO "can" consider the totality of the circumstances, including when the child support would end and that simply meeting the poverty level minimums.

I'm not arguing that a person cannot be approved using 100% child support as their only income. I'm saying that there's no assurance they will be. The CO CAN consider anything they think is relevent including the age of the children, as it impacts how long the child support "income" will last.

Both your "can" and my "can" are true. What "will" happen is not a sure thing either way. I suspect the vast majority of our readers comprehend the difference between "can" and "will" and that with any "can" comes a "might not". For some reason I don't understand, we seem to argue a lot about issues when one is saying "maybe" and the other "maybe not". The existence of one, gaurantees the other is also present.

There is absolutely no confusion here between my "can" and your "can".

This statement of yours is what I take issue with:

"As a practical matter, since "child support" is for supporting the children in the household, a CO may want to see that earned income at least meets the minimum for the household of two."

This is complete conjecture on your part. There is no anecdotal evidence that such a calculation is performed by CO's. It's misleading to readers to think this is done. It also implies that child support is somehow "less worthy" of inclusion in income calculations. Why should it be? Income is income. I guess maybe we should now start saying that income from stocks, bonds and annuities should be somehow discounted given the past performance of these instruments in the last six months? What say you to that?

In regards to what you state above about the remaining duration of child support, I have never seen anything in the FAM or in USCIS guidance to adjudicators to give a single bit of credence to that theory either. Research it all you like. You won't find written guidance to adjudicators which allows them any leniency to deny an affidavit because children are 'aging out'.

A lot of the arguments for what can happen with the I134 come from the firm guidance of the I864. With the I864, income is proven with LAST YEARS income tax return! Mike, I have seen you give sideways advice to posters who have recently lost jobs in this economy that they might want to sign and date their affidavit prior to a job loss. If it's OK with USCIS to base income on the last tax year, and OK with you that members be less than forthcoming about their present employment scenario, where do you come off with some theory about child support not being 'valid' income if it might end within the next year or so?

That's just YOUR OPINION. There is NO EVIDENCE of what you are writing about. It is nonsensical.

Edited March 20, 2009 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 12,883]

Once again, adding useful information for the OP is what VJ is all about.

Take the personal debates, that (always) derail threads, offline.

William -

If you are going to delete TWO rather innocuous posts of mine, how about deleting the made-up generalities of others?

I'm not going to stand idly by and allow a member, no matter how much clout they think they have, to allow readers to believe that CO's apply some mythical standard of earned income to the financials.

Income is income. If it can be proven it can be used. A sponsor's entire income could consist of child support, and if it's verifiable and steady, an affidavit can be approved. It is bogus to wave around the words 'totality of circumstance' to lend stigma to a category of income. That is WRONG.

Nobody said an affidavit cannot be approved using child support. I said the CO "can" consider the totality of the circumstances, including when the child support would end and that simply meeting the poverty level minimums.

I'm not arguing that a person cannot be approved using 100% child support as their only income. I'm saying that there's no assurance they will be. The CO CAN consider anything they think is relevent including the age of the children, as it impacts how long the child support "income" will last.

Both your "can" and my "can" are true. What "will" happen is not a sure thing either way. I suspect the vast majority of our readers comprehend the difference between "can" and "will" and that with any "can" comes a "might not". For some reason I don't understand, we seem to argue a lot about issues when one is saying "maybe" and the other "maybe not". The existence of one, gaurantees the other is also present.

There is absolutely no confusion here between my "can" and your "can".

This statement of yours is what I take issue with:

"As a practical matter, since "child support" is for supporting the children in the household, a CO may want to see that earned income at least meets the minimum for the household of two."

This is complete conjecture on your part. There is no anecdotal evidence that such a calculation is performed by CO's. It's misleading to readers to think this is done. It also implies that child support is somehow "less worthy" of inclusion in income calculations. Why should it be? Income is income. I guess maybe we should now start saying that income from stocks, bonds and annuities should be somehow discounted given the past performance of these instruments in the last six months? What say you to that?

In regards to what you state above about the remaining duration of child support, I have never seen anything in the FAM or in USCIS guidance to adjudicators to give a single bit of credence to that theory either. Research it all you like. You won't find written guidance to adjudicators which allows them any leniency to deny an affidavit because children are 'aging out'.

A lot of the arguments for what can happen with the I134 come from the firm guidance of the I864. With the I864, income is proven with LAST YEARS income tax return! Mike, I have seen you give sideways advice to posters who have recently lost jobs in this economy that they might want to sign and date their affidavit prior to a job loss. If it's OK with USCIS to base income on the last tax year, and OK with you that members be less than forthcoming about their present employment scenario, where do you come off with some theory about child support not being 'valid' income if it might end within the next year or so?

That's just YOUR OPINION. There is NO EVIDENCE of what you are writing about. It is nonsensical.

With all due respect you don't necessarily have access to the same anecdotal evidence I have. "May", "can"? Potato, Potawtoe". There's plenty of evidence CO's can pretty much do whatever they think is reasonable when it comes to evaluating the public charge issue. I've seen it happen, repeatedly.

When it comes to "NO EVIDENCE", I know of no individual human who could back up such a categorical statement. That "you" haven't seen the evidence is as far as you can go. I have and that's as far as I need to go.

[Y's_habibitk 2]

There's plenty of evidence CO's can pretty much do whatever they think is reasonable when it comes to evaluating the public charge issue. I've seen it happen, repeatedly.

Absolutely.

If the OP needs to add it to meet the requirement, add it.

But it is completely up to the CO unfortunately.

[rebeccajo 14]

Once again, adding useful information for the OP is what VJ is all about.

Take the personal debates, that (always) derail threads, offline.

William -

If you are going to delete TWO rather innocuous posts of mine, how about deleting the made-up generalities of others?

I'm not going to stand idly by and allow a member, no matter how much clout they think they have, to allow readers to believe that CO's apply some mythical standard of earned income to the financials.

Income is income. If it can be proven it can be used. A sponsor's entire income could consist of child support, and if it's verifiable and steady, an affidavit can be approved. It is bogus to wave around the words 'totality of circumstance' to lend stigma to a category of income. That is WRONG.

Nobody said an affidavit cannot be approved using child support. I said the CO "can" consider the totality of the circumstances, including when the child support would end and that simply meeting the poverty level minimums.

I'm not arguing that a person cannot be approved using 100% child support as their only income. I'm saying that there's no assurance they will be. The CO CAN consider anything they think is relevent including the age of the children, as it impacts how long the child support "income" will last.

Both your "can" and my "can" are true. What "will" happen is not a sure thing either way. I suspect the vast majority of our readers comprehend the difference between "can" and "will" and that with any "can" comes a "might not". For some reason I don't understand, we seem to argue a lot about issues when one is saying "maybe" and the other "maybe not". The existence of one, gaurantees the other is also present.

There is absolutely no confusion here between my "can" and your "can".

This statement of yours is what I take issue with:

"As a practical matter, since "child support" is for supporting the children in the household, a CO may want to see that earned income at least meets the minimum for the household of two."

This is complete conjecture on your part. There is no anecdotal evidence that such a calculation is performed by CO's. It's misleading to readers to think this is done. It also implies that child support is somehow "less worthy" of inclusion in income calculations. Why should it be? Income is income. I guess maybe we should now start saying that income from stocks, bonds and annuities should be somehow discounted given the past performance of these instruments in the last six months? What say you to that?

In regards to what you state above about the remaining duration of child support, I have never seen anything in the FAM or in USCIS guidance to adjudicators to give a single bit of credence to that theory either. Research it all you like. You won't find written guidance to adjudicators which allows them any leniency to deny an affidavit because children are 'aging out'.

A lot of the arguments for what can happen with the I134 come from the firm guidance of the I864. With the I864, income is proven with LAST YEARS income tax return! Mike, I have seen you give sideways advice to posters who have recently lost jobs in this economy that they might want to sign and date their affidavit prior to a job loss. If it's OK with USCIS to base income on the last tax year, and OK with you that members be less than forthcoming about their present employment scenario, where do you come off with some theory about child support not being 'valid' income if it might end within the next year or so?

That's just YOUR OPINION. There is NO EVIDENCE of what you are writing about. It is nonsensical.

With all due respect you don't necessarily have access to the same anecdotal evidence I have. "May", "can"? Potato, Potawtoe". There's plenty of evidence CO's can pretty much do whatever they think is reasonable when it comes to evaluating the public charge issue. I've seen it happen, repeatedly.

When it comes to "NO EVIDENCE", I know of no individual human who could back up such a categorical statement. That "you" haven't seen the evidence is as far as you can go. I have and that's as far as I need to go.

Oh please.

Stop trying to scare posters with your conjectures and your suppositions.

Williams says above that VJ is supposed to help people. Why do you insist on making up theories as to how or why a CO MIGHT view something in a negative light or deny a petition? Dont' go with your opinions - go with evidence to back up your reasoning.

There is indeed NO EVIDENCE to give ANY credence to your theories. Again, I ask you to stop making up reasons why a CO could deny a petition. Even "totality of circumstance" has to have more legs to stand on than that.

[William33 110]

I requested that this debate be taken off-line. That did not happen, so this thread is now closed.