I cant`t provide a 1040 form

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, this is wrong in so many ways that I'm not sure where to start.

First, you can use the net value of your home as an asset. Yes, this means the home you currently live in. Please see the I-864 instructions, page 8.

The assets and income are not collateral. This is not a loan from the US government. This is also not the IRS. They cannot simply confiscate the assets you listed on an I-864 if the sponsored immigrant collects means tested benefits. They have to go to court to get an order to force the sponsor to pay anything, and it's up to the court to determine which assets, if any, would need to be liquidated in order to satisfy the debt. If the courts determine you need to liquidate your home, then you need to liquidate your home, whether it's listed on the affidavit of support or not. Please read 8 CFR, section 213a. Collection action begins with a written notice to the sponsor. The only role USCIS has is to provide a copy of the signed affidavit to the agency claiming reimbursement. Any further collection action requires a lawsuit in civil court.

The purpose of listing assets on the affidavit of support is to show that you have access to cash, within a reasonable amount of time (12 months), if needed to support the immigrant. It is not a form of collateral which a government agency will then have the authority to seize. It's presumed that a sponsor could cash out equity in a home, including the home they live in, with a home equity loan or line of credit, without having to sell the home outright.

Then I stand corrected, however the instructions (for the I-864) do state the assets must be able to be sold within 12 months without undue hardship to the family. While these instructions do not apply to the I-134 and consulates have broad leeway onwhat they can consider.

Also I never meant to indicate that USCIS took away your property or assets. Yes a civil case is required by the government and there are limits on what can be confiscated.

[chinky_amanda 1]

Good day, Here is my question/concern. Since my only income is from Social Security Disability I have not had to file income tax form the past few years.I had checked with the IRS and they assured me that I did not have to file. From what I understand I must submit recent tax returns. What should I do ? I don`t expect to get the NOA2 for a few months yet. Should I file a 1040 now just to show I had filed a return and to prevent any delays ? Any advice you can pass along would be appreciated

Call the National customer service center 1800-375-5283 and ask them about your concern...

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Then I stand corrected, however the instructions (for the I-864) do state the assets must be able to be sold within 12 months without undue hardship to the family. While these instructions do not apply to the I-134 and consulates have broad leeway onwhat they can consider.

Also I never meant to indicate that USCIS took away your property or assets. Yes a civil case is required by the government and there are limits on what can be confiscated.

The wording is somewhat tricky. The INA only says the assets must be available to support the immigrant, if needed. 8 CFR is a little more specific, listing some specific types of assets that might be considered (including real estate). The requirement that the asset can be made available to support the immigrant with 12 months notice is a matter of USCIS policy, and not a matter of law. The terminology USCIS uses is that "assets that can be converted into cash within one year and without considerable hardship or financial loss to the owner may be included". The phrase "converted into cash" generally means the same thing as "sold". However, it's possible to convert equity into cash without selling the entire property. This is why the I-864 instructions say "You may include the net value of your home as an asset". This is pretty specific, as they probably wouldn't use the term "home" if they were referring only to property you didn't actually live in. They would use a more general term like "real estate" or "real property" or even "house". If they specifically meant only a house you didn't actually live in then they would be specific about it, as they are with cars in the same paragraph.

[Boiler 45,558]

Hopefully this will not end in tears, even if there are going to be a few on the way.

[SimplyMacy 4]

Good day, Here is my question/concern. Since my only income is from Social Security Disability I have not had to file income tax form the past few years.I had checked with the IRS and they assured me that I did not have to file. From what I understand I must submit recent tax returns. What should I do ? I don`t expect to get the NOA2 for a few months yet. Should I file a 1040 now just to show I had filed a return and to prevent any delays ? Any advice you can pass along would be appreciated

Is the one living with you now a minor? Is she or he included to receive benefits as well since you are in disability? You can include the child support as well if the SSDI alone is not suffecient. If the child living with you is a minor, you can include withholding order for child support and write a statement that explains why you do not have to file income tax. Include also the last 12 bank statements that showed your benefits direct deposited into your account. And don't forget to attach the statement of award from social security. My fiance is on disability since 2009. I am also in this situation and have read in previous posts here and someone was approved. My fiance was a self-employed before so I ncluded the form 1040 from 2007 & 2008. I have read that Philippines don't accept a co-sponsor. I hope everything will work for you. I am currently waiting for my NOA2. Goodluck and Godbless in your journey!

[pushbrk 12,908]

Gary, this is wrong in so many ways that I'm not sure where to start.

First, you can use the net value of your home as an asset. Yes, this means the home you currently live in. Please see the I-864 instructions, page 8.

The assets and income are not collateral. This is not a loan from the US government. This is also not the IRS. They cannot simply confiscate the assets you listed on an I-864 if the sponsored immigrant collects means tested benefits. They have to go to court to get an order to force the sponsor to pay anything, and it's up to the court to determine which assets, if any, would need to be liquidated in order to satisfy the debt. If the courts determine you need to liquidate your home, then you need to liquidate your home, whether it's listed on the affidavit of support or not. Please read 8 CFR, section 213a. Collection action begins with a written notice to the sponsor. The only role USCIS has is to provide a copy of the signed affidavit to the agency claiming reimbursement. Any further collection action requires a lawsuit in civil court.

The purpose of listing assets on the affidavit of support is to show that you have access to cash, within a reasonable amount of time (12 months), if needed to support the immigrant. It is not a form of collateral which a government agency will then have the authority to seize. It's presumed that a sponsor could cash out equity in a home, including the home they live in, with a home equity loan or line of credit, without having to sell the home outright.

While you make legitimate points, "can count" is certainly true with respect to filling out the affidavit, the final decision is made fairly subjectively by a consular officer and you can bet your britches THEY won't consider equity in the primary residence as reasonably liquidated within a year without adverse impact to the sponsor or their family. As a practical matter, this petitioner is going to need to do the last thing they want to do, which is to find a qualified joint sponsor. She can do it now or do it after the visa is denied.

[pushbrk 12,908]

The wording is somewhat tricky. The INA only says the assets must be available to support the immigrant, if needed. 8 CFR is a little more specific, listing some specific types of assets that might be considered (including real estate). The requirement that the asset can be made available to support the immigrant with 12 months notice is a matter of USCIS policy, and not a matter of law. The terminology USCIS uses is that "assets that can be converted into cash within one year and without considerable hardship or financial loss to the owner may be included". The phrase "converted into cash" generally means the same thing as "sold". However, it's possible to convert equity into cash without selling the entire property. This is why the I-864 instructions say "You may include the net value of your home as an asset". This is pretty specific, as they probably wouldn't use the term "home" if they were referring only to property you didn't actually live in. They would use a more general term like "real estate" or "real property" or even "house". If they specifically meant only a house you didn't actually live in then they would be specific about it, as they are with cars in the same paragraph.

This is academic and true but what is more important is what the Consular officer will decide. See bet your britches comment in my previous reply. We're dealing with real life here, not theory.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

While you make legitimate points, "can count" is certainly true with respect to filling out the affidavit, the final decision is made fairly subjectively by a consular officer and you can bet your britches THEY won't consider equity in the primary residence as reasonably liquidated within a year without adverse impact to the sponsor or their family. As a practical matter, this petitioner is going to need to do the last thing they want to do, which is to find a qualified joint sponsor. She can do it now or do it after the visa is denied.

A consular officer always has discretion with any sort of evidence presented, and yes I'm aware that some consular officers have been ignoring home equity with I-134's, but some have also accepted it. I know someone who successfully did it less than six months ago, in Vietnam no less. They were a little less than $4000 short on income to sponsor two immigrants. They owed less than $100K on a home with a current market value around $300K. They had an open equity line of credit for $50K, with over $40K readily available at the stroke of a pen. They provided documents to prove all of this, and their affidavit was accepted.

A home equity loan is equivalent to borrowing your own money from a mortgage company. The only "adverse impact" is that it will either increase your payments or increase the term of the loan. A consular officer can certainly use their discretion to determine whether borrowing against your home would constitute a "considerable hardship". I haven't seen any evidence that they do so as a matter of policy. Through my wife's family, I've met a number of people who have sponsored immigrants. Several of them have successfully used equity in their primary residence to qualify.

Edited November 10, 2010 by JimVaPhuong

[pushbrk 12,908]

A consular officer always has discretion with any sort of evidence presented, and yes I'm aware that some consular officers have been ignoring home equity with I-134's, but some have also accepted it. I know someone who successfully did it less than six months ago, in Vietnam no less. They were a little less than $4000 short on income to sponsor two immigrants. They owed less than $100K on a home with a current market value around $300K. They had an open equity line of credit for $50K, with over $40K readily available at the stroke of a pen. They provided documents to prove all of this, and their affidavit was accepted.

A home equity loan is equivalent to borrowing your own money from a mortgage company. The only "adverse impact" is that it will either increase your payments or increase the term of the loan. A consular officer can certainly use their discretion to determine whether borrowing against your home would constitute a "considerable hardship". I haven't seen any evidence that they do so as a matter of policy. Through my wife's family, I've met a number of people who have sponsored immigrants. Several of them have successfully used equity in their primary residence to qualify.

If I were the Conoff, I too would have approved in the case you mention. It is very different though from the one in question here and from most cases with income shortfalls. I suspect there are more differences than you took the time to mention such as a history of higher income and good prospects of returning to a sufficient income. One reason I would approve such a case is that clearly the sponsor could have "downsized" their living arrangement without undue harm.

I did not mean to imply that equity in the primary residence would never be considered in any case or in any way. My thoughts were in the context of the case at hand, where the sponsor is disabled and on a long term fixed income. Chances of a home equity loan are slim and none.