Checklist Snag

[drg 0]

My assets are several ISA's. I'm really confused as to why these would by considered unsuitable as they are easily convertable if need be. The divide by 3 rule means they don't make up the full amount, but added to her salary, they more than do.

The thing that puzzles me is that they didn't actually ask for more documents before they'll process (ie request for evidence), they simple state that what we have will be discussed at the interview. They merely suggest that it might be a good idea to find a co-sponsor. Makes me wonder if they don't understand the evidence that was sent?

Edited May 15, 2009 by drg

[lainie 0]

My assets are several ISA's. I'm really confused as to why these would by considered unsuitable as they are easily convertable if need be. The divide by 3 rule means they don't make up the full amount, but added to her salary, they more than do.

The thing that puzzles me is that they didn't actually ask for more documents before they'll process (ie request for evidence), they simple state that what we have will be discussed at the interview. They merely suggest that it might be a good idea to find a co-sponsor. Makes me wonder if they don't understand the evidence that was sent?

Say her shortfall was $1000, your assets would have to make up three times that amount, ($3000) or for sake of argument five times that amount ($5000) in order to be considered. If they do not meet that requirement they wont even consider them and you will need a co sponsor. If she has a family member or friend that could co sponsor it shouldnt be too big of a set back, maybe two weeks for them to gather info and documentation!

[drg 0]

My assets are several ISA's. I'm really confused as to why these would by considered unsuitable as they are easily convertable if need be. The divide by 3 rule means they don't make up the full amount, but added to her salary, they more than do.The thing that puzzles me is that they didn't actually ask for more documents before they'll process (ie request for evidence), they simple state that what we have will be discussed at the interview. They merely suggest that it might be a good idea to find a co-sponsor. Makes me wonder if they don't understand the evidence that was sent?

[drg 0]

I called NVC today and found out there "reasoning."

Basically I was told, my wife doesn't earn enough so they are not looking at my assets on the same form (I-864) even though with them we meet the threshold. So I'm told we need to get a joint sponsor "just-in-case" when the consular offical looks at the the form (our I-864) and decides that there is something wrong with my assets. Oh, and our documents will stay at NVC until we get a joint sponsor!

So why do they bother having the spousal part of the I-864 if they don't intend to count it? Perhaps they should mention that on the forms? I would've got a joint sponsor in the first place rather than facing further delays because we tried to keep things simple whilst still following (and complying with) their rules.

I'm pretty angry about this. It's not helped by the attitude of NVC phoneline operatives. I'm always perfectly polite. Everytime I've called them I get some angry sounding woman who seems incredibly upset that I'm calling and disturbing her day and who talks over you at every opportunity. They also don't seem to know their own rules and get stuff wrong everytime.