Is there no way out?

[NY_BX 397]

Here is my situation,

I brought my wife (soon to be ex) to the US on a K1 visa along with 3 of her children. The children ages are twin 18 year old girls and a 5 yr. old son.. Things went horribly wrong from the beginning. She would not leave the country after the 90 days. I couldn’t in good conscious allow the kids to be illegal aliens. So I married her hoping to get them their GC’s and at least the kids would have a better life. We’ve been married for 3 1/2 years. She received her & the children's GC’s 5/13/11. Financially I could not apply for them sooner, and is why the 3 years of marriage and only GC’s for 11 months.

I had filed for divorce once a couple months after we had been married, but I let it laps without completing it. I had also filed a letter with ICE that I thought it was a fraudulent marriage and at the GC interview they had brought it up. I again filed in February this year, and this time will follow through. I’m told I will be on the hook for alimony for a year, maybe a year and a half. If I wait again, it will be permanent alimony.

My situation is this.. The entire time of the marriage has been hell, but I stayed with it because I wanted the best for the children.. The first divorce filing I was guilted into “please let us get our GC’s and we wont be anymore trouble for you”.. Ok, now they have the 2 year conditional GC. Things have only gotten worse and I just can’t take it anymore, so I filed for the divorce.

Her issue again was can we please wait until I get the 10 year GC’s.. I called the atty that did the paperwork for her GC’s and she informed me she can still get her 10 GC without me, GREAT, so I filed.. Financially I’m very week , we have been living paycheck to paycheck. The economy took away my normal employment and I have been working at lower paying employment to make ends meet. She works part time cleaning houses for cash to send to her mother and family back in their country.

She has never trusted what I tell her.. I could say the wall is white, but she would need to confirm it with her friends first. This being said, I decided we would get a mediator to help in the divorce so she wouldn’t think she was getting screwed and hopefully I wouldn’t either.. HA !! Mediator informs me because of the I864, I am on the hook for everything ! With 4 people ( her and the 3 kids) it amounts to $28,800 a year or approx. $550 a week.! If she applies for any state assistance before the divorce is finalized, the state will be at her table during the divorce demanding the judge rule that I pay the $550 a week to her.. That leaves me lets say $150 a week to live on ! I had suggested to the mediator that the lease on our apartment expires at the end of this month. I would renew the lease for 1 year and we could continue to live together and I would pay $200 to her per week and could deduct it from the lease, electric, etc.. I obviously can’t afford 2 apartments.. He said that was the best case scenario that could happen. She agreed, we left.. 2 days later she decided she wants her own place, section 8. So I am certain she is getting advice from somewhere, and it only involves screwing me in the end.. We still share the same apartment and things are amicable up till now..

The only thing I ever get out of her is that she wants more than anything to go back to her country and be with her mother and family, but can’t because the future for the children is here..

I have been looking for a divorce Atty. with knowledge of the I864, but as of yet have not been able to find one.

There has got to be a way out of this where the nice guy doesn’t finish last again...

You're not a nice guy. You're a terrific man with good intentions, but making the wrong decisions.... for yourself. You have- little by little- buried yourself in deeper poopoo thanks to your kind heart. Apparently she's manipulating you with HER kids. She tells you she wants to go back, but the kids future is here. That's HER problem. You must take care of yourself, so get a divorce attorney, and run out of this while you can.

Good luck and keep us posted.

[Fight for Love 98]

first of all you marry her for GC not a bonafide relationship if you tell ICE about this you could get jail for FRAUD!!!

secondly be advise that sec 8 is not public charge...

Q. What publicly funded benefits may not be considered for public charge purposes?

A. Non-cash benefits (other than institutionalization for long-term care) are generally not taken into account for purposes of a public charge determination.

Special-purpose cash assistance is also generally not taken into account for purposes of public charge determination.

Non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Therefore, past, current, or future receipt of these benefits do not impact a public charge determination. Non-cash or special purpose cash benefits that are not considered for public charge purposes include:

Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs

Housing benefits

Child care services

Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

Emergency disaster relief

Foster care and adoption assistance

Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary, or higher education

Job training programs

In-kind, community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)

State and local programs that are similar to the federal programs listed above are also generally not considered for public charge purposes. Please be aware that states may adopt different names for the same or similar publicly funded programs. It is the underlying nature of the program, not the name adopted in a particular state, which determines whether or not it should be considered for public charge purposes. In California, for example, Medicaid is called "Medi-Cal" and CHIP is called "Healthy Families." These benefits are not considered for public charge purposes.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=829b0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=829b0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

[Darnell 8,479]

agree with the 'vicious attorney' bit.

You need a defender, in all sense of that definition. Work out a payment plan if you need to, but get busy to get one this upcoming week.

[Matt1968 13]

This OP has made some mistakes. Who hasn't? But it seems WAY over the top to be judging him so harshly! He seems to be trying to make the best of a bad situation for all involved but has become ensnared in a very difficult problem that hindsight will say he should have seen coming!

To the OP; You need a good lawyer that knows his way around the affidavit of support issue. Keep your head up and learn from your mistakes. Good luck!

Couldn't disagree more. A mistake is an when you do something unententionally, an error is a complete lapse in judgement and doing something you know is wrong. This was an error, and a big one. Committed for fraud. He married her, knowing it was doomed to fail just for GC's for all. Another poster said this but i agree, this is why it's so hard for real couples to get their approvals. I wouldn't call it being nice, I would call it being idiotic. Fraud is Fraud, no such thing as "Nice" fraud or "Bad" Fraud, it's still fraud.

Matt

Edited April 1, 2012 by Matt1968

[andrea y arturo 14]

Let her go home. Columbia is not a third world country and she has a support system there.

The OP never said he didn't want her to go home. He clearly said that while his wife "wants" to go home, she also realizes that her kid's future is in the us not In Colombia. ...

[1niceguy 0]

secondly be advise that sec 8 is not public charge...

Q. What publicly funded benefits may not be considered for public charge purposes?

A. Non-cash benefits (other than institutionalization for long-term care) are generally not taken into account for purposes of a public charge determination.

Special-purpose cash assistance is also generally not taken into account for purposes of public charge determination.

Non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Therefore, past, current, or future receipt of these benefits do not impact a public charge determination. Non-cash or special purpose cash benefits that are not considered for public charge purposes include:

Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs

Housing benefits

Child care services

Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

Emergency disaster relief

Foster care and adoption assistance

Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary, or higher education

Job training programs

In-kind, community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)

State and local programs that are similar to the federal programs listed above are also generally not considered for public charge purposes. Please be aware that states may adopt different names for the same or similar publicly funded programs. It is the underlying nature of the program, not the name adopted in a particular state, which determines whether or not it should be considered for public charge purposes. In California, for example, Medicaid is called "Medi-Cal" and CHIP is called "Healthy Families." These benefits are not considered for public charge purposes.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=829b0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=829b0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

Thank you for this, it was very helpful.. I've been able to do more research using it.

I think if I am understanding correctly what I have been reading, she at any time can still sue me for the 125% above poverty that the I-864 refers.

I have also been vigorously searching for a atty firm that has counsel in both divorce & immigration issues.. Not a easy find.. And the attorneys I know have been giving me referrals, but none have been comfortable enough in both areas to want to offer council..

Edited April 1, 2012 by 1niceguy

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Thank you for this, it was very helpful.. I've been able to do more research using it.

I think if I am understanding correctly what I have been reading, she at any time can still sue me for the 125% above poverty that the I-864 refers.

I have also been vigorously searching for a atty firm that has counsel in both divorce & immigration issues.. Not a easy find.. And the attorneys I know have been giving me referrals, but none have been comfortable enough in both areas to want to offer council..

The link you quoted isn't relevant to you. Public charge affects her, not you.

What DOES affect you is "means tested" benefits. If she uses any of these benefits YOU can be sued by the US government to pay them back. Here is the link to get you started looking into that: http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_3183.html#4

She can also TRY and sue you to get paid on the basis of the I-864 but it is rarely awarded (it's still a risk but a small one) because the contract is between the US government and you, she is not a party to the contract.

Regarding an attorney, you might need to go in and see both an immigration and a divorce attorney at the same firm. Explain your concerns and then they should be able to figure it out between them. Might be more expensive but it's an idea. The divorce lawyer SHOULD be able to consult with the immigration attorney in their firm if the I-864 becomes a factor.

[Darnell 8,479]

she can sue you, all she wants, for anything,

but without a compendium of legal precedence, nothing will awarded.

there's SCANT legal precedence on the I-864 'usage', but it does exist, and IMO (and others) was wrongfully interpreted by a judge at the divorce hearing.

[andrea y arturo 14]

Couldn't disagree more. A mistake is an when you do something unententionally, an error is a complete lapse in judgement and doing something you know is wrong. This was an error, and a big one. Committed for fraud. He married her, knowing it was doomed to fail just for GC's for all. Another poster said this but i agree, this is why it's so hard for real couples to get their approvals. I wouldn't call it being nice, I would call it being idiotic. Fraud is Fraud, no such thing as "Nice" fraud or "Bad" Fraud, it's still fraud.

Matt

Agreed. Well said! Taking on a pair of 18 year old kids and a 5 year old is a decision that has to be made with a lot of thought before hand. Once that decision is made one has to act responsibly.

[Xanax 349]

I feel so sorry for you OP. I know you were only trying to do the right thing and you probably did not consider the ramifications clearly, this was an error in judgement, but we all make mistakes (is my opinion).

I wish you the very best luck, you have been given good advice here. If you ever need to chat, my inbox is always available.

Britt

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Thank you for this, it was very helpful.. I've been able to do more research using it.

I think if I am understanding correctly what I have been reading, she at any time can still sue me for the 125% above poverty that the I-864 refers.

I have also been vigorously searching for a atty firm that has counsel in both divorce & immigration issues.. Not a easy find.. And the attorneys I know have been giving me referrals, but none have been comfortable enough in both areas to want to offer council..

The rules in family court are the not the same as the rules in a civil court. The family court judge has to issue decisions based on the state's family law. In most states, there are provisions in the state's family code for considering a pre-nuptual agreement when making a spousal support determination. Lacking a pre-nup, the judge is usually bound by the support formulas provided in the family code. An I-864 is NOT a proper pre-nuptual agreement - only one of the spouses ever signed it. It's not a contract between the spouses. It's a contract between one spouse and the US government. In many states the judge will determine that the family court is not the proper forum for a hearing on enforcement of the I-864, and will instruct the spouse to seek enforcement in a civil court.

That said, the I-864 has been used successfully to establish spousal support payments in some states. I've never heard of a case where the judge has made a blanket order that the spouse who signed the I-864 must pay 125% of the poverty guidelines regardless. The contract portion of the I-864 does not require this, and the judge won't adjudicate as if it did. The I-864 obligates the sponsor to see that the sponsored immigrant is supported at a level equal to 125% of the poverty guidelines. If the sponsored immigrant already has income of their own then that income must be taken into account. I know of two cases where the judge refused to order any support because the sponsored immigrant already had income above 125% of the poverty guidelines.

You don't need an attorney who is fluent in both family law and immigration law. This is not about immigration law. Any attorney can read a contract. The only thing the attorney needs to do is determine if the state's family law will permit the judge to consider a contract which does not constitute a pre-nup, and was only signed by one spouse. If the family law won't allow the judge to consider it then proceed with the divorce as usual. If she decides to sue you in a civil court then you'll probably need a lawyer who is fluent in contract law in your state. Civil courts in some states have determined that the sponsored immigrant can't seek enforcement of the affidavit of support, in spite of the wording in the contract that states otherwise, because the sponsored immigrant is a beneficiary of the contract rather than a party to the contract. Those courts have determined that the sponsored immigrant must request the other party - the US government - to seek enforcement on their behalf. There is zero chance that USCIS is going to sue you in order to make you pay your ex-wife.

The bottom line is that everything depends on the laws of your state.

If she collects any means-tested public benefits then that's a completely different issue. The agency that provides those benefits can take enforcement action against you. They'll try to get you to pay voluntarily before they go to the trouble of filing a lawsuit.

[rlogan 2,036]

This OP has made some mistakes. Who hasn't? But it seems WAY over the top to be judging him so harshly!

Except that we acknowledge the mistakes we made instead of repeating them, which you are encouraging. The definition of "nice guy" he is using is a perverted Robin Hood complex. You are not being a "nice guy" by committing felonies for three illegal aliens. It isn't made legal by getting away with it. Visajourney's rules forbid promoting immigration fraud. We can't do that when people on the forum are protesting the identification of fraud as "harsh" and "way over the top".

He seems to be trying to make the best of a bad situation for all involved

That thinking was what put him in this situation. His ideas about what is "best" for "all" are disordered. He's also listening to the person who manipulated him into committing immigration fraud at this moment, and the mediator who has also apparently been manipulated into siding with the fraudster's view of the I-864.

but has become ensnared in a very difficult problem that hindsight will say he should have seen coming!

Saying it that way removes the responsibility and accountability, which guarantees making the same mistake again. The first responsibility we have is to ourselves. He has to be made to understand that. It is not being a bad guy to be a responsible adult and ensure your life, safety, and welfare before you take on responsibility for everyone else.

Look how people have resorted to recommending a "vicious" divorce attorney. That is an exaggeration. A competent attorney will protect your interest, but people feel the need to use that kind of exaggerated language to shake this guy out of his "good guy" complex. His definition of "good" is wrong. Being a martyr does not automatically grant one "goodness". The wrong thing to do is adopt his incorrect beliefs about what words mean, and use his own vocabulary to communicate with him (you have to be vicious). He thinks it is vicious to be responsible to yourself before anyone else, so let's all start using exaggerated terms for normal behavior.

He needs to adopt the correct definition of normal instead of us calling normal behavior vicious.

There has got to be a way out of this where the nice guy doesnt finish last again

Start putting yourself first and you'll stop finishing last.

Edited April 2, 2012 by rlogan

[james&olya 1,121]

Except that we acknowledge the mistakes we made instead of repeating them, which you are encouraging. The definition of "nice guy" he is using is a perverted Robin Hood complex. You are not being a "nice guy" by committing felonies for three illegal aliens. It isn't made legal by getting away with it. Visajourney's rules forbid promoting immigration fraud. We can't do that when people on the forum are protesting the identification of fraud as "harsh" and "way over the top".

That thinking was what put him in this situation. His ideas about what is "best" for "all" are disordered. He's also listening to the person who manipulated him into committing immigration fraud at this moment, and the mediator who has also apparently been manipulated into siding with the fraudster's view of the I-864.

Saying it that way removes the responsibility and accountability, which guarantees making the same mistake again. The first responsibility we have is to ourselves. He has to be made to understand that. It is not being a bad guy to be a responsible adult and ensure your life, safety, and welfare before you take on responsibility for everyone else.

Look how people have resorted to recommending a "vicious" divorce attorney. That is an exaggeration. A competent attorney will protect your interest, but people feel the need to use that kind of exaggerated language to shake this guy out of his "good guy" complex. His definition of "good" is wrong. Being a martyr does not automatically grant one "goodness". The wrong thing to do is adopt his incorrect beliefs about what words mean, and use his own vocabulary to communicate with him (you have to be vicious). He thinks it is vicious to be responsible to yourself before anyone else, so let's all start using exaggerated terms for normal behavior.

He needs to adopt the correct definition of normal instead of us calling normal behavior vicious.

Start putting yourself first and you'll stop finishing last.

I stand by my post. I did not say what he did was right. But while what he did is wrong he does not deserve to be labeled so harshly. I doubt that any but the most obtuse would go through such an experience without learning anything to the point of repeating said behaviors. Illegal actions can be committed without being morally wrong. The two are not synonymous and he appears to have made some wrong-headed decisions but doing it, nonetheless, for what he, at the time, thought were high-minded reasons. It should be obvious to him now why he should have done things 'by the book'!

[Fandango 1,440]

Someone should tell these women that some areas of Section 8 have a waiting list that is years long. I can't speak for the whole country, but I can certainly speak for my area. I deal with this every day at work, so trust me, I'm not speculating one bit.

[rlogan 2,036]

Illegal actions can be committed without being morally wrong.

So you support green card fraud in this exact case because it is the "moral" thing to do? Don't be coy, and don't pretend we are talking about some other imaginary story.

I disagree with you on the morality of marrying for the purpose of immigration fraud. It is not moral. Why do you insinuate it was the moral thing to do? What was moral about it? He just taught the mother, the three children, and everyone in their circles in both countries that immigration fraud works. So they too are encouraged to commit immigration fraud - and enablers like you encourage it by pretending this is the "moral" thing to do.

The two are not synonymous and he appears to have made some wrong-headed decisions but doing it, nonetheless, for what he, at the time, thought were high-minded reasons. It should be obvious to him now why he should have done things 'by the book'!

You cannot have it both ways. You are pretending it was the morally correct thing to do, except you end with saying he should not have done it. What you want us to do is stop using the correct english words to describe what he did. We all have to adopt a different vocabulary to accomodate a person with disorered thinking instead of him fixing his Robin Hood complex. No, it is not our duty nor right to facilitate illegal immigration. It is not the moral thing to do.

I would love to hear your explanation of why his crime was the moral thing to do. Please tell us.