221g

[Cute Pinay 1]

Help! anyone here happened to have a 221g, and consul asked for "Letter explaining about unemployment (for a month)" and how u do it? so stressed now.. TIA

[FZSA 23]

who is unemployed ? Petitioner or beneficiary ???

[Lovie Lovie 9]

Right we need to know who is employed.

[pushbrk 12,908]

What we actually need in order to help is to know the exact wording of the request you received.

Edited May 27, 2014 by pushbrk

[Cute Pinay 1]

from the petitioner - need to explain his unemployment for 1 month. he is a instructor in college so happened, no class for a month . He told me the union at college advised him to apply for unemployment, now it became a problem to us coz consul saw that "unemployment" & became a big issue on them..Now we need to explain it- can u help us how?

[pushbrk 12,908]

Was the petitioner unemployed on the day completed and signed the I-864? Where did Consul see unemployment for a month? On the affidavit or on the tax return. I can't read minds. Tell me what the problem is and the full context of their request.

[Cute Pinay 1]

petitioner is still employed.. still teaching.. i guess not really our lucky day during interview, consul can see the 2013 tax & we are ok..he was focused on that "unemployment" - so strict consul. he saw it from attachments we filed in affidavit.

[pushbrk 12,908]

Will you kindly provide straight answers to the actual questions I asked? Otherwise, I'm out of here.

[Cute Pinay 1]

Was the petitioner unemployed on the day completed and signed the I-864? Where did Consul see unemployment for a month? On the affidavit or on the tax return. I can't read minds. Tell me what the problem is and the full context of their request.

he is employed when he signed i-864. he saw it in affidavit's - attachment. consul want to know why he was unemployed asking for letter explanation.

[nightingalejules 678]

So it looks like you need to provide an explanation. Sounds like his "unemployment" was actually a temporary layoff. Is the actual problem that your spouse was not just unemployed, but also collecting unemployment insurance benefits? This may be the co's concern- that if your spouse is already taking "means tested benefits", is he really prepared to support you (who doesn't qualify for them).

I think you should get the union rep to write a letter explaining the situation, and that it is common practice for teachers to apply for unemployment benefits between contracts.

It sounds like it's not the fact that he was unemployed that is the issue you need to explain. What you need to explain is why he applied for social assistance at the same time he's trying to prove he can support you, so you won't have to apply for social assistance.

It also seems like that was a bad decision on your hubby's part, and/or bad advice from the union, given the circumstances.

If I'm interpreting the situation wrong, sorry!

[pushbrk 12,908]

So it looks like you need to provide an explanation. Sounds like his "unemployment" was actually a temporary layoff. Is the actual problem that your spouse was not just unemployed, but also collecting unemployment insurance benefits? This may be the co's concern- that if your spouse is already taking "means tested benefits", is he really prepared to support you (who doesn't qualify for them).

I think you should get the union rep to write a letter explaining the situation, and that it is common practice for teachers to apply for unemployment benefits between contracts.

It sounds like it's not the fact that he was unemployed that is the issue you need to explain. What you need to explain is why he applied for social assistance at the same time he's trying to prove he can support you, so you won't have to apply for social assistance.

It also seems like that was a bad decision on your hubby's part, and/or bad advice from the union, given the circumstances.

If I'm interpreting the situation wrong, sorry!

Unemployment "insurance" is not social assistance. All Consular Officers know this and know it well. A simple explanation that it was a temporary 30 day layoff between contracts is all that is needed. No need for a Union Representative to be involved and it definitely was not a "mistake" or bad advice to apply for an "insurance benefit". Unemployment is not "means tested". You qualify by being "employed" prior to being "unemployed", even if your employment paid big bucks and you have plenty of "means" saved up.

[Cute Pinay 1]

thank you for the replies / infos...