Montreal Consulate/Interview RFE

[GitmeOuttaHere 0]

Hello all VJers. I would like to tell you about our experience and get some advice on how to move forward.

Everything had gone smoothly up until our interview in mid June. At that time the CO put myself/our children's visas on hold (gave us a 221g) based on my petitioner not being able to adequately prove domicile. On the form that the Co gave us is said "please submit more evidence of domicile and an i-864 form from a joint sponsor, along with our passports"

We immediately brought it to her attention that we were using assets and had more than enough to adequately fulfill the minimum 5x poverty guidelines and therefore did not require a joint sponsor. She agreed and just circled the "evidence of domicile" area on our 221g sheet and sent us on our way.

4 weeks later we were finally able to secure a residence for my petitioner in the US and provide all the necessary residency requirements and documents required to again prove domicile and sent it all in to the Montreal consulate.

Now another 2 weeks goes by and I get a letter from the Montreal consulate saying "need I-864 from joint sponsor".

Now I believe that at interview the CO was so hung up on domicile. (She did not even attempt to look at the evidence we supplied or review any of our original I-864 when at the window) and since she put both of those in the one paragraph on the 221g. (She verbally just said that our I-864 was fine when we challenged her about it at the window) But we did not see her make any changes in the system or go to type anything else in the computer.. I think that whoever is now reviewing the documents that we subsequently sent in feels it is lacking when really it is not.

So now it seems we have made it over the domicile hurdle, but how do we now challenge the I-864/joint sponsor which we really don't need. Is there a way to get someone in MTL to review our case and reevaluate it so they can see that we do have more than the minimum when using assets.

Any VJ'rs please help.!!

[canadian_wife 1,822]

Part of the I864 when the petitioner is living abroad is to prove that the USC will return to the US with or before the intended immigrant. This is to prevent people from petitioning immigrants, having them move to the US and the USC stays abroad. Montreal is very strict about domicile and always has been (so much so that there is a sticky pinned in the Canada forum for advice on overcoming the domicile issues.

My advice about the sponsorship, get a co-sponsor. If you have enough assets the co-sponsor won't have to do anything. If you try and fight it, you may waste more time than what it would take to simply submit the cosponsor forms.

If you wish to fight it, then you can e-mail the consulate asking for another review of your file, but I'm not sure this will satisfy you as they are slow to respond on a good day

Good luck

[Pitaya 2,577]

Part of the I864 when the petitioner is living abroad is to prove that the USC will return to the US with or before the intended immigrant. This is to prevent people from petitioning immigrants, having them move to the US and the USC stays abroad. Montreal is very strict about domicile and always has been (so much so that there is a sticky pinned in the Canada forum for advice on overcoming the domicile issues.

My advice about the sponsorship, get a co-sponsor. If you have enough assets the co-sponsor won't have to do anything. If you try and fight it, you may waste more time than what it would take to simply submit the cosponsor forms.

If you wish to fight it, then you can e-mail the consulate asking for another review of your file, but I'm not sure this will satisfy you as they are slow to respond on a good day

Good luck

Excellent advice (as always).

[GitmeOuttaHere 0]

What is the point of getting a co-sponsor when we have over and above what is needed on a regular I-864.

I really don't think the CO at interview looked past the 1040's that my petitioner provided, and we had a ton of other documents to prove assets that never even got looked at!!! It is all in our file and I don't think it was reviewed at all when we sent in the domicile documents.

I can understand a joint sponsor if income/assets cannot be met, but this is not the case.

Also my Petitioner is contacting the Senator in her state to appeal for more help. We already had that ball rolling before we got hit with this again.

[canadian_wife 1,822]

What is the point of getting a co-sponsor when we have over and above what is needed on a regular I-864.

I really don't think the CO at interview looked past the 1040's that my petitioner provided, and we had a ton of other documents to prove assets that never even got looked at!!! It is all in our file and I don't think it was reviewed at all when we sent in the domicile documents.

I can understand a joint sponsor if income/assets cannot be met, but this is not the case.

Also my Petitioner is contacting the Senator in her state to appeal for more help. We already had that ball rolling before we got hit with this again.

Nothing, you missed my point. Fighting it will probably take longer than simply submitting the paperwork for a cosponsor

Good luck

[GitmeOuttaHere 0]

It should be as easy as them pulling the file, looking at it to see they made an error and issuing 3 Visas. This should not even be my problem, as they are the ones that have overlooked it. A case like this should be expedited and corrected as soon as possible with no further delay.

As far as a co sponsor...unless you are volunteering we have no one...None!!!

[mrettercap 24]

It should be as easy as them pulling the file, looking at it to see they made an error and issuing 3 Visas. This should not even be my problem, as they are the ones that have overlooked it. A case like this should be expedited and corrected as soon as possible with no further delay.

As far as a co sponsor...unless you are volunteering we have no one...None!!!

'Should', yes...but remember you are dealing with a government agency. What ought to happen and what, in reality, does happen rarely coincides.

Edited August 6, 2012 by mrettercap

[GitmeOuttaHere 0]

Good thing we have Senator Cornyn on the case!!