I-864 Income Requirement

[K1visaHopeful 2,814]

3 minutes ago, PRC Rabbit said:

I would never have read these rules to differentiate ownership of  'cash assets'  between husband & wife to  apply different standards within the same household.  The concepts of Equitable Distribution  and  Marital Property from  'divorce-land'  come to mind.  This reading of the rules is prehistoric.  I do recognize that the "intended meaning" in promulgating a rule  and USCIS'  subsequent  "applied meaning" can be profoundly  different.

 

I don't think anyone could read these rules in that manner. Thanks for pointing it out Carmel34 .

For  couples  married & living together in USA  via K1, the USC's name on all cash accounts defeats the  5x  criteria? 

Sounds too easy  to circumvent yet I've spent that much pre-marriage on travel to Singapore.

Our accounts are co-mingled already and she's already Beneficiary of my Life Ins (Whole Life). 

 

I need to ponder and search this for awhile. Thanks Carmel34 for cluing me into what I missed.

The one year rule of proof for the assets isnt easy to circumvent? 

[EM_Vandaveer 2,408]

For sure they need a statement as to why you did not file taxes. I cannot comment on the rest other than it looks like you're pretty close to the line & I believe they can use their discretion in those cases so you may end up needing a joint sponsor.

[PRC Rabbit 40]

Thanks to all for your input. 

I find the reading of  "your assets" to eliminate combined assets to be a  disingenuous  stretch of  logic and the English language.

I've seen worse  decisions and rulings so I realize it's probably true.

I'm going to search the decisions  on this and be back in day or 2.

Ned 

[Nitas_man 3,100]

On 1/7/2019 at 10:57 AM, PRC Rabbit said:

I would never have read these rules to differentiate ownership of  'cash assets'  between husband & wife to  apply different standards within the same household.  The concepts of Equitable Distribution  and  Marital Property from  'divorce-land'  come to mind.  This reading of the rules is prehistoric.  I do recognize that the "intended meaning" in promulgating a rule  and USCIS'  subsequent  "applied meaning" can be profoundly  different.

 

I don't think anyone could read these rules in that manner. Thanks for pointing it out Carmel34 .

For  couples  married & living together in USA  via K1, the USC's name on all cash accounts defeats the  5x  criteria? 

Sounds too easy  to circumvent yet I've spent that much pre-marriage on travel to Singapore.

Our accounts are co-mingled already and she's already Beneficiary of my Life Ins (Whole Life). 

 

I need to ponder and search this for awhile. Thanks Carmel34 for cluing me into what I missed.

Even I didnt directly interpret the rule that way.  I just spelled out the rules.

 

What I do know is that only a percentage of a 401k counts.  They subtract taxes or at least thats what the guy at the embassy counter told me.   I recall like 20 or 25%.  For us it didnt matter.

 

I know that intending immigrant’s assets are subject to 5x the difference.  I do not know if they apply that rule after you combine them but it’s an instinctive feeling that they would look at the source of assets and have at least some controls over immigrants who try to circumvant that 5x rule so its something you might have to plan for.

 

Good luck to both of you.

 

[geowrian 22,337]

3 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

What I do know is that only a percentage of a 401k counts.  They subtract taxes or at least thats what the guy at the embassy counter told me.   I recall like 20 or 25%.  For us it didnt matter.

Exactly. They use the net value of the asset. For a 401(k) this would be the value post-taxes and after any fees for early withdrawal.

Had it been a Roth IRA or something, I would expect them to consider the entire value (assuming you had it at least 5 years).

Edited January 8, 2019 by geowrian

[PRC Rabbit 40]

This thread led  me to find  Part 213a of CFR (current as of Dec 20, 2018):

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1183a; 8 CFR part 2. Source: 62 FR 54352, Oct. 20, 1997, unless otherwise noted.

 

(B) Significant assets. The sponsor may submit evidence of the sponsor's ownership of significant assets, such as savings accounts, stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit, real estate, or other assets. An intending immigrant may submit evidence of the intending immigrant's assets as a part of the affidavit of support, even if the intending immigrant is not required to sign an affidavit of support attachment. The assets of any person who has signed an affidavit of support attachment may also be considered in determining whether the assets are sufficient to meet this requirement. To qualify as “significant assets” the combined cash value of all the assets (the total value of the assets less any offsetting liabilities) must exceed: (1) If the intending immigrant is the spouse or child of a United States citizen (and the child has reached his or her 18th birthday), three times the difference between the sponsor's household income and the Federal poverty line for the sponsor's household size (including all immigrants sponsored in any affidavit of support in force or submitted under this section);   To think someone would use the regurgitated version of the law set forth in the I-864 instructions to  argue that "your income" means anything other than "household income" is   duplicative  beyond belief.

Edited January 8, 2019 by PRC Rabbit

[PRC Rabbit 40]

Oh I made a mistake, I don't have a 401k it's a TDA.

Combined assets are available for meeting difference at 3x.