Reuters:Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change

[millefleur 5,046]

**Moved from General Immigration-Related Discussion to US Immigration News and Discussion**

[theresaL 408]

The article states the wife doesn't work. So, you have a case where the primary sponsor has no income, a household size of 7 and potential income of around $38K per year (125% is almost $49K) and a co-sponsor and a family history of receiving government support. He was rightfully denied on public charge grounds in my opinion. 

[Jeanne Adil 1,651]

58 minutes ago, cyclone27 said:

Actually the financial requirements are too low in my honest opinion. 

 

I would eliminate co sponsors and you need to realistically be able to support who you sponsor.

Me too

[Mrsjackson 300]

1 hour ago, cyclone27 said:

Actually the financial requirements are too low in my honest opinion. 

 

I would eliminate co sponsors and you need to realistically be able to support who you sponsor.

What makes you say that? 

[Mrsjackson 300]

If I understand what I’ve read correctly, the financial requirements are more difficult to meet now at a consular processing level. This interview took place outside of the US so it’s possible that while this man would have previously skated by, he did not this time and that could be because of the changes resulting from current admin. Although, I would have to fully agree that even despite his FIL’s affidavit it did seem likely he would be a public charge. 90k a year is not a huge amount to support all members of such a huge family. 

[SalishSea 17,829]

1 hour ago, cyclone27 said:

Actually the financial requirements are too low in my honest opinion. 

 

I would eliminate co sponsors and you need to realistically be able to support who you sponsor.

Agreed.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

18 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

If I understand what I’ve read correctly, the financial requirements are more difficult to meet now at a consular processing level. This interview took place outside of the US so it’s possible that while this man would have previously skated by, he did not this time and that could be because of the changes resulting from current admin. Although, I would have to fully agree that even despite his FIL’s affidavit it did seem likely he would be a public charge. 90k a year is not a huge amount to support all members of such a huge family. 

We have seen that before on here as well. The one case I can think of is the wife was making a really low wage and was petitioning her husband to come here. She understood that she needed a cosponsor and got one who made a similar amount like in this case.That case was denied as well because the CO determined that if they needed help then the cosponsor couldn't readily help out because he lived in a different part of the country than where they are.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Cyberfx1024

[Mrsjackson 300]

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

We have seen that before on here as well. The one case I can think of is the wife was making making a really low wage and was petitioning her husband to come here. She understood that she needed a cosponsor and got one who made a similar amount like in this case.That case was denied as well because the CO determined that if they needed help then the cosponsor couldn't readily help out because he lived in a different part of the country than where they are.

It makes sense. I read the article and it stated the officer raised concerns about the father in law’s commitment to supporting him.

[SalishSea 17,829]

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

We have seen that before on here as well. The one case I can think of is the wife was making making a really low wage and was petitioning her husband to come here. She understood that she needed a cosponsor and got one who made a similar amount like in this case.That case was denied as well because the CO determined that if they needed help then the cosponsor couldn't readily help out because he lived in a different part of the country than where they are.

Great example of how, even before this “change,” the totality of the situation is at the discretion of the CO.  It’s not just about numbers on paper.

[Mrsjackson 300]

9 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Great example of how, even before this “change,” the totality of the situation is at the discretion of the CO.  It’s not just about numbers on paper.

Article states the children’s use of medicaid was questioned. There’s no denying that’s new. I’m against all forms of fear mongering but there have been changes at the consular level and we might as well acknowledge that. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

7 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

It makes sense. I read the article and it stated the officer raised concerns about the father in law’s commitment to supporting him.

Well I would as well to be honest. They are a family of 7 of which 5 are kids. So $38k a year salary salary even in Texas is dang near poverty level for that many kids. I know that for a fact because I am even pinched a little bit due to having 4 kids making $80k.

[Mrsjackson 300]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Well I would as well to be honest. They are a family of 7 of which 5 are kids. So $38k a year salary salary even in Texas is dang near poverty level for that many kids. I know that for a fact because I am even pinched a little bit due to having 4 kids making $80k.

Not talking opinions just straight facts. Consular officers were previously not permitted to consider Medicaid. As of January 2018 they are. It is what it is. It’s a change directly related to the current admin. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

Not talking opinions just straight facts. Consular officers were previously not permitted to consider Medicaid. As of January 2018 they are. It is what it is. It’s a change directly related to the current admin. 

Which is a good change in my opinion. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

8 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Well I would as well to be honest. They are a family of 7 of which 5 are kids. So $38k a year salary salary even in Texas is dang near poverty level for that many kids. I know that for a fact because I am even pinched a little bit due to having 4 kids making $80k.

Oops sorry I thought had replied to a different comment than the one you did so you were probably like “huh?”. Lol. Yeah I would too. 

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Which is a good change in my opinion. 

Well it is a matter of opinion. There are many organizations and economists who strongly disagree with considering Medicaid and made their views known in the federal registry comments. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Mrsjackson
To add more information

[Mrsjackson 300]

8 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Which is a good change in my opinion. 

This was a good read if you’re interested.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/12/14/these-flaws-may-kill-the-public-charge-rule/amp/