Temporarily Laid Off - Unemployment benefits while waiting on NOA2

[David86 0]

I submitted form I-129F Semtember 10, 2012, by November 16, 2012 I got laid off from work and I got a letter from my employer saying that it was Reduction-In-Force business was slow, they said they are calling people back to work when business pick up, but gave me no specific date to return, next week It will be 5 months since I sent my I-129 and I am worried because I am not working, I am receiving $870 biweekly from Unemployment Benefits, filed my taxes yerstarday found out I made 45K last year. Not sure if any help, I read other forums people said only actual income counts,any advise on that :bonk: Please!!

[GodsGift225 54]

If you are receiving unemployment that is consider an income. You need to look at the proverty guidelines here the link http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-864p.pdf you don't make enough you will need a co-sponsor. Something your should start looking into now just in case you don't get your job back from now to your approval.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If you are receiving unemployment that is consider an income. You need to look at the proverty guidelines here the link http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-864p.pdf you don't make enough you will need a co-sponsor. Something your should start looking into now just in case you don't get your job back from now to your approval.

All true BUT

Here are the facts of the case:

1. He has no employment

2. He has no written promise of being re-hired to present

3. He has an income from unemployment that is limited in term.

While there is nothing that disqualifies unemployment insurance as income, there is also no requirement for the consulate to accept it. His level of unemployment income easily qualifies for 2 people, probably 3. But they can simply reject the income. I am sure some consulates would accpet it and some would not.

Your last year's income will not matter, UNLESS the consulate wants it to matter. The good (and bad) thing about this is that there ARE NO rules the consulate HAS TO follow. Each one makes their own and the consulate is ONLY required to be satisfied your fiancee will not become a public charge. All the poverty guidelines and sich come from the I-864 used for the Adjustment of Status. There are no guidelines for the I-134. NONE. It is common on VJ to ASSUME that the consulates use the I-864 guidelines as theri guidelines for the I-134. I am sure some do, amybe even many do. But there is no requirement to do so and even if they "do" there is no requirement to do so for every case. Consulates have incredibly wide latitude on this matter.

This could go two ways...

"The guy made $45,000 last year and has good skills and experience and will probably get employment soon. APPROVED"

OR

"the guy has no job and no co-sponsor...DENIED"

Bottom line...if I had ONLY unemployment at the time of the interview, I would bring in a co-sponsor.

That co-sponsor is on the hook ONLY until you submit an I-864 for the Adjustment of Status and for THAT, the unemployment IS counted as income.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[GodsGift225 54]

All true BUT

Here are the facts of the case:

1. He has no employment

2. He has no written promise of being re-hired to present

3. He has an income from unemployment that is limited in term.

While there is nothing that disqualifies unemployment insurance as income, there is also no requirement for the consulate to accept it. His level of unemployment income easily qualifies for 2 people, probably 3. But they can simply reject the income. I am sure some consulates would accpet it and some would not.

Your last year's income will not matter, UNLESS the consulate wants it to matter. The good (and bad) thing about this is that there ARE NO rules the consulate HAS TO follow. Each one makes their own and the consulate is ONLY required to be satisfied your fiancee will not become a public charge. All the poverty guidelines and sich come from the I-864 used for the Adjustment of Status. There are no guidelines for the I-134. NONE. It is common on VJ to ASSUME that the consulates use the I-864 guidelines as theri guidelines for the I-134. I am sure some do, amybe even many do. But there is no requirement to do so and even if they "do" there is no requirement to do so for every case. Consulates have incredibly wide latitude on this matter.

This could go two ways...

"The guy made $45,000 last year and has good skills and experience and will probably get employment soon. APPROVED"

OR

"the guy has no job and no co-sponsor...DENIED"

Bottom line...if I had ONLY unemployment at the time of the interview, I would bring in a co-sponsor.

That co-sponsor is on the hook ONLY until you submit an I-864 for the Adjustment of Status and for THAT, the unemployment IS counted as income.

very will said. Also just to add to this that at time they will also ask for a bank letter to see how much funds you have put away in the account that can be added as an extra income. So as stated it can go BOTH ways!

Edited February 7, 2013 by GodsGift225

[David86 0]

All true BUT

Here are the facts of the case:

1. He has no employment

2. He has no written promise of being re-hired to present

3. He has an income from unemployment that is limited in term.

While there is nothing that disqualifies unemployment insurance as income, there is also no requirement for the consulate to accept it. His level of unemployment income easily qualifies for 2 people, probably 3. But they can simply reject the income. I am sure some consulates would accpet it and some would not.

Your last year's income will not matter, UNLESS the consulate wants it to matter. The good (and bad) thing about this is that there ARE NO rules the consulate HAS TO follow. Each one makes their own and the consulate is ONLY required to be satisfied your fiancee will not become a public charge. All the poverty guidelines and sich come from the I-864 used for the Adjustment of Status. There are no guidelines for the I-134. NONE. It is common on VJ to ASSUME that the consulates use the I-864 guidelines as theri guidelines for the I-134. I am sure some do, amybe even many do. But there is no requirement to do so and even if they "do" there is no requirement to do so for every case. Consulates have incredibly wide latitude on this matter.

This could go two ways...

"The guy made $45,000 last year and has good skills and experience and will probably get employment soon. APPROVED"

OR

"the guy has no job and no co-sponsor...DENIED"

Bottom line...if I had ONLY unemployment at the time of the interview, I would bring in a co-sponsor.

That co-sponsor is on the hook ONLY until you submit an I-864 for the Adjustment of Status and for THAT, the unemployment IS counted as income.

Thanks, that was clear enough, I will start looking for a co-sponsor, I had employer write a statement to me before the laid off, stated that I worked from 12/20/10 to PRESENT. Letter says permanet not temporary position, title, and salary, I'll take that with my w-2, a co- sponsor and hope they call me back to work before the interview, only time will tell, thanks a lot!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Thanks, that was clear enough, I will start looking for a co-sponsor, I had employer write a statement to me before the laid off, stated that I worked from 12/20/10 to PRESENT. Letter says permanet not temporary position, title, and salary, I'll take that with my w-2, a co- sponsor and hope they call me back to work before the interview, only time will tell, thanks a lot!

The CO does not have to allow a co-sponsor. That is another value judgement left up to the person taking the interview and his immediate supervisor. For any chance that a co-sponsor will be accepted, the person offering to cosponsor your fiancee should be a close relative.

Edited February 7, 2013 by The Patriot

[David86 0]

The CO does not have to allow a co-sponsor. That is another value judgement left up to the person taking the interview and his immediate supervisor. For any chance that a co-sponsor will be accepted, the person offering to cosponsor your fiancee should be a close relative.

Thanks, I will keep an eye on that!