Affd. of Support Evidence - Benefit information?

[Bruce n Jen 0]

brucejg,

Yes, it's a stretch, and I think I indicated as much when I wrote "If your income is marginal and you have little or no savings then the benefits information could possibly be the grain of sand that tips the scale in your favor." But the information is relevant, even if of little significance in most cases, and I commend Cass for thinking 'out of the box' and not wearing the vision-narrowing blinders that so many VJers seem to wear.

The evaluation of the public charge requirements for non-immigrant visas are highly subjective, not nearly as strictly defined as the requirements for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status. People who are on or close to the margin would do well to take a hard look at all of their financial resources and put forth everything they have at their disposal that could show their financial situation in a more positive light. The chances that the adjudicating officer will consider the information may be low, but the chances are zero only if the information is not presented.

In your quotation you underlined the phrases "sufficient income" and "Salary paid" - why do you neglect the option of showing "and/or financial resources"? Why do you write about "un-asked for information" when people are invited to present any and all relevant information? And insurance is a financial resource that is specifically pointed out as information that one might provide for meeting the public charge requirements.

Yodrak

We could debate this ad nauseum - what I'm looking at is how they might - if a question says what it says, all the fluff in the world doesnt' answer the question. The only insurance benefit I have that could be construed toward this intent is my disability income insurance on my ability to practice my profession. Anything else is not going to pay my mortgage, debts or feed me. Yeah, some benefits may be listed on a W2 but that's vapor money.

Where is insurance mentioned as a financial resource? unless I'm misinterpreting your reference.

I would take financial resources as other means for you to have liquid cash - that are totally under your control, ie savings, a trust, an inheritance. I'm sure there are some who are retired with no job or salary at all, yet financial resources such as retirement accounts, social security, pensions are readily available for support.

[Bruce n Jen 0]

Yodrak,

Let me update my last response. I just saw the posting with reference to the UK post, Evidence Which May Be Presented to Meet the Public Charge Provisions of the Law. So I see where insurance is referred to as a financial resource.

But, the OP said this:

"So, my first question is, what is your opinion on this? Would having my benefit information (health insurance, vision insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, long-term disability insurance, and personal accident insurance) available to paint a fuller picture be beneficial?"

and the UK site says this:

"Applicants Own Funds

An applicant who expects to be able to meet the public charge provisions of the law through personal financial resources may submit to the consular officer evidence of funds or income from one or more of the following sources:

* statement from insurance company showing policies held and present case surrender value;"

I suspect that's supposed to say "cash surrender value."

Most of the insurance the OP lists does not have surrender value, only the life insurance if it's whole life.

"cash surrender value

Definition: The amount available in cash upon cancellation of an insurance policy, usually a whole life policy, before it becomes payable upon death or maturity. also called cash value or surrender value. "

And reviewing the UK data, I still believe they are looking for liquid available cash flow.

[Yodrak 7]

brucejg,

True.

9 FAM 40.41 Notes. A brief mention, without detail, leaving it wide open. As I wrote, the public charge determination for non-immigrants is very subjective giving a lot of leeway for the visa applicant to present and make their case.

Yodrak

We could debate this ad nauseum .....

Where is insurance mentioned as a financial resource? unless I'm misinterpreting your reference.

.....

[bebop + rocksteady 0]

That was the basis for my thinking. If it was for AOS, it wouldn't fly, but the public charge proof for the non-immgrant seems to be more a matter of the opinion of the consular officer regarding the fiancial stability rather than black and white requirements.

Cass (bebop the great)

As I wrote, the public charge determination for non-immigrants is very subjective giving a lot of leeway for the visa applicant to present and make their case.

Yodra

Edited November 30, 2006 by bebop + rocksteady

[meauxna 15]

I still think you are overthinking it.

I recall Vancouver not even asking for evidence of support or an I-134 for K-1 visas.

And even if they do, it's Canada and the totality of your circumstances are that you're a young, college educated, English as a first language couple of similar ages and interests. From Canada. Did I mention that? Not to mention the fact that you've already stated that your current income is +sufficient. And you're adding a second sponsor.

I agree in theory with the arguments above, but you also have to apply some common sense and remember which post you are dealing with. You've had a lot of posts on this topic, and I'm not sure what there is that you don't know by this point. You're bright, you've read a lot. You're going to go roll your dice regardless... what is there to be gained by asking us (just curious)?

[Bruce n Jen 0]

brucejg,

True.

9 FAM 40.41 Notes. A brief mention, without detail, leaving it wide open. As I wrote, the public charge determination for non-immigrants is very subjective giving a lot of leeway for the visa applicant to present and make their case.

Yodrak

Yodrak,

I've looked at 9 FAM 40.41. Yes, a brief mention, insurance policies. Yeah, maybe that's a wide open statement, but I no longer think it's a stretch - it's way off base thinking ANY/ALL insurance policies.

Gees, the whole intention is income, cash flow, available means of support. That's the issue, yet I hear no response to that.

Go look at any loan or mortgage application, or net worth form, I just did - the ONLY insurance listed as an asset is life insurance - the cash value of it, nothing else.

I respectfully disagree and feel that it is misleading to the OP -

[Jersey Girl 2]

I agree with brucejg, and add that employer-sponsored life insurance is generally a term policy with no cash surrender value. The only way it can create a cash flow is if you're dead.

Also, many employment agreements these days are "at will," which means they can walk you to the door at any moment. This puts your benefits at risk, another reason not to present them as evidence you can keep an alien off the dole.

While I wouldn't want to wear "the vision-narrowing blinders that so many VJers seem to wear," I'd also like to take the path of least resistence and just follow the damn rules as we know them.

[rebeccajo 14]

When I first read Cass' question, my initial thought was -

What, if any, of the employer benefits she mentions might really be considered a benefit that would allay a CO's fear of 'public charge'?

The only one that really registered for me would be health insurance when filing for an intending immigrant with health issues.

The fact the sponsor could provide, by virtue of their employment, medical coverage for the immigrant might be noteworthy in marginally 'close' cases. Something I think could be mentioned in an attachment to the I-134

Edited November 30, 2006 by rebeccajo

[Yodrak 7]

brucejg,

I do think that these things would be far down on the list of financial resources. But I also think - again - that for the right person, at the right time, and in the right place, it could be something that would tip the balance if the situation is on the edge. That's all. Don't read more into it than I've written.

Cass did not provide any information about her situation, and even if she had provided detailed information I could not begin to guess how the particular consular officer her fiance will face might decide. She asked if the information would give a fuller picture of her financial situation. It will. Will it make her more likely to be seen as an acceptable sponsor? Possibly it could, but I didn't even begin to suggest that it would in her case. So what was misleading?

Yodrak

brucejg,

True.

9 FAM 40.41 Notes. A brief mention, without detail, leaving it wide open. As I wrote, the public charge determination for non-immigrants is very subjective giving a lot of leeway for the visa applicant to present and make their case.

Yodrak

Yodrak,

I've looked at 9 FAM 40.41. Yes, a brief mention, insurance policies. Yeah, maybe that's a wide open statement, but I no longer think it's a stretch - it's way off base thinking ANY/ALL insurance policies.

Gees, the whole intention is income, cash flow, available means of support. That's the issue, yet I hear no response to that.

Go look at any loan or mortgage application, or net worth form, I just did - the ONLY insurance listed as an asset is life insurance - the cash value of it, nothing else.

I respectfully disagree and feel that it is misleading to the OP -

Edited November 30, 2006 by Yodrak

[Bruce n Jen 0]

brucejg,

I do think that these things would be far down on the list of financial resources. But I also think - again - that for the right person, at the right time, and in the right place, it could be something that would tip the balance if the situation is on the edge. That's all. Don't read more into it than I've written.

Cass did not provide any information about her situation, and even if she had provided detailed information I could not begin to guess how the particular consular officer her fiance will face might decide. She asked if the information would give a fuller picture of her financial situation. It will. Will it make her more likely to be seen as an acceptable sponsor? Possibly it could, but I didn't even begin to suggest that it would in her case. So what was misleading?

Yodrak

Yodrak,

My intention is the best interests of the OP and not to mislead or give false hope. And I do realize you're quite knowledgeable all around here.

However as seen by other posters I am not alone in this view. You've also quite clearly avoided the issues I've raised regarding the overall aspect of insurance in regard to a statement of financial position.

Insurance for the most part IS a BENEFIT - it has NO cash value except for whole life insurance. The UK site clearly states cash surrender value of insurance policies. That DOES NOT exist with all the other insurance benefits an employee might have. Further, an insurance benefit ONLY kicks in when an insurable incident occurs.

I don't know what your personal experience is in this area, I know we cleared up the quarterly reports issue.

I've scanned through 9 FAM to get a sense of intent - they're looking for sources of support - that IS the bottom line. Insurance benefits don't complete a financial picture - they kick in when some loss occurs - so if someone is marginal, how the heck is a non-cash generating insurance benefit going to support them?

As I've said earlier, can you pay your rent/mortgage/car payment with these insurance benefits? And I think it's off base to remotely imply it goes to a support picture no matter how much you want to stretch it. Done!

[CutienPurg 0]

the point i was able to gather out of this debate is this;

you can not pay your rent/mortgage/car payment with health insurance benefits. however where there is none and a serious illness or injury occurs the cost can be catastrophic and the affect of that catastrophic event would significantly hinder ones ability to payrent/mortgage/car payment. the presence of insurance indicates the potential for a more secure financial picture overall.

[Bruce n Jen 0]

the point i was able to gather out of this debate is this;

you can not pay your rent/mortgage/car payment with health insurance benefits. however where there is none and a serious illness or injury occurs the cost can be catastrophic and the affect of that catastrophic event would significantly hinder ones ability to payrent/mortgage/car payment. the presence of insurance indicates the potential for a more secure financial picture overall.

HUH? seems to be a contradiction. Ok, you say you can't pay bills with health insurance benefits. Agreed. Then you say a catastrophic event will hinder the ability to pay bills. And you conclude the insurance indicates a more secure financial picture? I don't think so.

Let's see: you have a so-called catastrophic event, you're out of work in the hospital for 2 weeks. Great, your medical insurance pays the bills, oh but you have deductibles and co-payments, AND you lose 2 weeks pay. How are you in a better financial picture????? You have half your monthly income to pay the same monthly bills.

[CutienPurg 0]

How are you in a better financial picture????? You have half your monthly income to pay the same monthly bills.

You're not amassing medical bills on top of those lost wages.....better a co-payment and deductible than the full bill.

A simple trip to the e.r. is around $600.00 to start without any tests, nevermind a catastrophic event.

[Bruce n Jen 0]

You're not amassing medical bills on top of those lost wages.....better a co-payment and deductible than the full bill.

A simple trip to the e.r. is around $600.00 to start without any tests, nevermind a catastrophic event.

HUH! I don't get your point at all.

Say you make $2000 per month. You're out of work 2 weeks, so you only get paid $1000. How ya gonna make up the missing $1000? Duh? Forget the bills, where ya going to get the missing $1000? Sheesh, this is simple math.

[bebop + rocksteady 0]

Not if you have personal accident insurance.

Cass (bebop the great)

AND you lose 2 weeks pay.