New I-864 Affidavit of Support Coming Out?

[EA and MK 48]

Hi All,

 

Just wanted to get clarity on the upcoming I-864 affidavit of support changes as described in the following:

 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCIS-2007-0029-0111

 

What is the purpose of collecting my, the sponsor's, bank account info? What will the routing and account number information? Will they investigate how much money is in the bank as a deciding factor for my spouse's CR-1? How much money should I keep in it so they won't deny me? This seems very intrusive, and worry some that there is no clarity on what they will use bank account info for.

 

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

11 minutes ago, EA and MK said:

Hi All,

 

Just wanted to get clarity on the upcoming I-864 affidavit of support changes as described in the following:

 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCIS-2007-0029-0111

 

What is the purpose of collecting my, the sponsor's, bank account info? What will the routing and account number information? Will they investigate how much money is in the bank as a deciding factor for my spouse's CR-1? How much money should I keep in it so they won't deny me? This seems very intrusive, and worry some that there is no clarity on what they will use bank account info for.

 

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

They’ve always asked for bank account info

[pushbrk 12,883]

7 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

They’ve always asked for bank account info

Only when documenting assets.  I think it is premature to comment on the purpose until the form is finalized and the full context can be understood.  Some of these proposals are probably not going to make it into the actual form.  

 

My premature comment on why they would ask for bank account information is so the IRS can levy the account directly if there's a need to collect.  Of course there's never a need to collect unless the immigrant becomes a public charge.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

I guess I just did it to match up deposits with current year paystubs.  Oops

[pushbrk 12,883]

38 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

I guess I just did it to match up deposits with current year paystubs.  Oops

I would caution against even using the term "current year" in any context.  Current and current year don't mean the same thing.  Current income is current income.  It has nothing at all to do with the current year.  Not saying you are confused but this is a common point of confusion.

 

It's also an example why what (any) "you" DID, may or may not be the thing another person would be wise to do.  Often people do the wrong thing or unnecessary things and STILL end up with a successful visa process.

[EA and MK 48]

52 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

Only when documenting assets.  I think it is premature to comment on the purpose until the form is finalized and the full context can be understood.  Some of these proposals are probably not going to make it into the actual form.  

 

My premature comment on why they would ask for bank account information is so the IRS can levy the account directly if there's a need to collect.  Of course there's never a need to collect unless the immigrant becomes a public charge.

Thank you for the clarification. I guess I should t worry about it until the final version comes out. I just find it odd they are requesting so much more information from the US Citizen. I think the I-864 as it is, is already a rather comprehensive and tightly binding contract. 

[FAW 12]

I think the I-864 is excessively binding.  I think up 5 years would be sufficient if even that.  It’s especially frustrating for those that have been frauded for a green card and then still have this obligation.  I know more than one person this has happened to.  
 

It’s interesting how much work and stress immigration makes us go though.  With that being said, there is virtually no help for those people That get played by someone.  The hypocrisy....

[Lara&Gabriel 19]

Are joint sponsor required to provide their birth certificate and drivers license though they already provided there greencard id and passport???

 

Thankyou

[Just Paul 4,595]

1 minute ago, Lara&Gabriel said:

Are joint sponsor required to provide their birth certificate and drivers license though they already provided there greencard id and passport???

 

Thankyou

They have to provide something to show their citizenship.  Passport, birth certificate or naturalization certificate.

 

[Just Paul 4,595]

15 minutes ago, FAW said:

I think the I-864 is excessively binding.

I help out at an immigration clinic and when I go thru and explain the sponsorship requirements you would be surprised how many do not understand the binding affect. Add in joint sponsors where most don't really take time understand it or ask questions.  Only once I have had someone say "no" and walk away.

 

The "carrot" to the sponsor is to encourage the immigrant to obtain citizenship in 3 or 5 years.

The "carrot" to the spouse is to make sure that they know very, very well the beneficiary.

 

The current system is a trade off between making sure that the immigrant does not become a public charge and the petitioner not keeping the beneficiary in a state of servitude.

 

22 minutes ago, FAW said:

It’s especially frustrating for those that have been frauded for a green card and then still have this obligation.

Unfortunately it happens.   It happened to a good friend of mine when the husband filed divorce the day after the ROC green card was received and stopped working.  What a mess.  

 

I remember that when 10 years (liability) came up in an Arizona  immigration workgroup session that almost half the room thought that the I-864 should apply until the immigrant became a citizen.  I think that would be very chilling.

 

Since you are doing this again I hope that you have had time to better know your spouse and everything works out fine.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

1 hour ago, pushbrk said:

I would caution against even using the term "current year" in any context.  Current and current year don't mean the same thing.  Current income is current income.  It has nothing at all to do with the current year.  Not saying you are confused but this is a common point of confusion.

 

It's also an example why what (any) "you" DID, may or may not be the thing another person would be wise to do.  Often people do the wrong thing or unnecessary things and STILL end up with a successful visa process.

My friend.  I’ve been here since the year after you.

 

I’ve done 4 of these, all the same way.

 

Tax returns showing previous year or years incomes

 

Paystubs from first of current year (the year the affidavit is filed) to date of signing the affidavit

 

Bank statements with deposits matching the paystubs.

 

One might be an accident.  Two maybe.  But ?4?  LOL?  All the same way, all smoothly passed through?  “Here are my taxes and this is what my income is now” has always worked.
 

That process meets the requirement of the affidavit of support.  It goes beyond the requirement.  It is a rock solid record of ability to support from as far as 3+ years back (sometimes 3 returns) or even 1+ year back (if feeling lazy and provide 1 return).  Don’t caution me.  I’m really, really good at this.  Current income has everything to do with the current year.  Sometimes they wanna see that, sometimes not.  If they do?  They got it.  If they don’t?  They got it.  No more possible information needed or available either way.  

[Nitas_man 3,100]

2 hours ago, EA and MK said:

Thank you for the clarification. I guess I should t worry about it until the final version comes out. I just find it odd they are requesting so much more information from the US Citizen. I think the I-864 as it is, is already a rather comprehensive and tightly binding contract. 

It doesn’t seem to be enforced like I believe they will be wanting to enforce it in the future

[pushbrk 12,883]

2 hours ago, Nitas_man said:

My friend.  I’ve been here since the year after you.

 

I’ve done 4 of these, all the same way.

 

Tax returns showing previous year or years incomes

 

Paystubs from first of current year (the year the affidavit is filed) to date of signing the affidavit

 

Bank statements with deposits matching the paystubs.

 

One might be an accident.  Two maybe.  But ?4?  LOL?  All the same way, all smoothly passed through?  “Here are my taxes and this is what my income is now” has always worked.
 

That process meets the requirement of the affidavit of support.  It goes beyond the requirement.  It is a rock solid record of ability to support from as far as 3+ years back (sometimes 3 returns) or even 1+ year back (if feeling lazy and provide 1 return).  Don’t caution me.  I’m really, really good at this.  Current income has everything to do with the current year.  Sometimes they wanna see that, sometimes not.  If they do?  They got it.  If they don’t?  They got it.  No more possible information needed or available either way.  

Not saying you did anything wrong.  Overkill still kills.  The point is "what you did" (again any "you" not you specifically) may or may not be the right thing for somebody else to do.  "What I did" is information, not "What somebody else needs to do."  Not the same animal.

[geowrian 22,337]

Yeah, I'm not so sure on the purpose or validity of bank account information being requested. If using assets, documentation of those assets is already required. Having bank account numbers does not aid in that check.

If it were to be for enforcement reasons (which is not a stated purpose of this proposal), it's quite easy for somebody to just move the funds afterwards. So it doesn't seem very effective either, and even then this is something that would need to go through the courts first anyway.

Meh...I think that part going through is a bit of along shot. But we'll see.

 

21 hours ago, FAW said:

I think the I-864 is excessively binding.  I think up 5 years would be sufficient if even that.  It’s especially frustrating for those that have been frauded for a green card and then still have this obligation.  I know more than one person this has happened to. 

I don't think the US public - in general - is supportive of having to bear the burden of somebody who becomes a public charge based on a period of time.

Fraud certainly does happen. But unless that fraud can be proven - in which case the immigrant faces removal - it's a he-said, she-said case and somebody has to cover the burden.

Note that this only impacts people who do actually become a public charge...this is not referring to the vast majority of the immigrant population who do not.

 

The biggest enforcement issue I have with the I-864 is that the agreement itself does not have an obligation for the immigrant to mitigate enforcement of agreement. Meaning they do not have an explicit obligation to seek employment so they do not require being supported under the I-864.

I believe (it's been a bit since I read those cases) there are some district courts that have inferred such a requirement, but most do not.

 

21 hours ago, Paul & Mary said:

I remember that when 10 years (liability) came up in an Arizona  immigration workgroup session that almost half the room thought that the I-864 should apply until the immigrant became a citizen.  I think that would be very chilling.

What 10 years?

[pushbrk 12,883]

19 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Yeah, I'm not so sure on the purpose or validity of bank account information being requested. If using assets, documentation of those assets is already required. Having bank account numbers does not aid in that check.

If it were to be for enforcement reasons (which is not a stated purpose of this proposal), it's quite easy for somebody to just move the funds afterwards. So it doesn't seem very effective either, and even then this is something that would need to go through the courts first anyway.

 

Since the IRS would be used to do collection, they already have access to bank account information for all owners of US bank accounts.  I suspect a number of these proposed changes will not go through.  Strange they are considering reinstating the Notary requirement that went away more than a decade ago.  We'll see what we see.