COnfused about foreign earned income and assets on I-864

[tmac99 31]

Yes @B&C2017. My wife and I are in similar position as you, and we just got DQ. We live in Canada, for income we put 0 and in pen wrote foreign income. My wife and I are using assets, and the NVC basically said it's up to the consular to decide if the assets are applicable and not them (they are just checking documents).  That said, I did get an RFE of employment income for my wife even though we are in Canada and I had to use her paystub. 

 

Good luck with your journey. You are getting close! 

 

 

[Punisher 40]

10 hours ago, geowrian said:

That said, I did want to point out one specific item that I think really needed to be corrected:

The I-864 instructions states:

"Specific Requirements

...

What Are the Income Requirements?

To qualify as a sponsor, you must demonstrate that your income is at least 125 percent of the current Federal Poverty Guidelines for your household size."

 

It does not say past income, so tax returns would not satisfy this requirement (unless tax returns determined your current income, such as self employed individuals).

TO be clear: the word "current" in the example above refers to currently applicable PG at the time of Adjudication, and is not to be extrapolated to "current income"

 

(for i-864 purposes) You are confusing the "current income" with general "income" requirement which is broadly defined (rightfully so) that consists of combination of past income/current income/assets .

Nowhere does it say you must have "current income" to qualify as Sponsor. 

 

And You must have missed form i-864 page 5 Part 7

Quote

If your income, or the total income for you and your household, from Part 6., Item Numbers 20. 

OR 

24.a. - 24.c. (Tax Returns),

exceeds the Federal Poverty Guidelines for your household size, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED to complete this Part 7 (assets)

If one assumes that only Sponsors with "current income" qualify then it would be POINTLESS to put "or 24.a - 24.c" and ask people for past tax returns or Assets. Why does it ask then?

To determine one's eligibility to sign the 864 contract you look at the full picture.

 

A. Currently stateside employed USC, first job ever (no tax returns, no assets) documenting "current income" at 25k might very well be rejected as sponsor by AOs even though meeting 125% PG.

 

B. Currently UNemployed (reason is irrelevant) USC that shows last 3 tax returns at 200k each, (no assets) will likely IMO be approved.

 

C. Currently UNemployed (reason is irrelevant) USC that did not have to file taxes for past 3 years (low probability but still possible) that proves 5mil in net assets (i.e. inheritance) will likely be IMO approved.

 

Based on your narrow definition of  what "income" (for i-864) should be then scenarios B and C would have to be denied right away with simple explanation "unemployed". 

 

Why is it that:

1. I am finding direct quotes from instructions or i-864 itself that contradict your unjustified extrapolations of meanings and at the same time no one so far was able to quote piece of text that would contradict what I say.. 

2. Gov't which makes the forms (IMO) pretty clear not even once bothered to say you must maintain "current income" to qualify

3. The whole picture of 864 is clear: You meet "income" requirement by showing past income or combination of "current income" plus assets.

 

No amount of assets, past or current income is a guarantee that Sponsor's financial condition would not end up be a disaster in the near future.

But a person with excellent financial health so far (3 past returns) and no current income is as good (worthy, credible) a candidate to sign 864 obligation, as any reasonable AO would correctly assume that the skill/education/heritage/entrepreneurship that make help the sponsor make recent "fat" earnings will continue in the future and there is absolutely nothing in legal terms (i-864 or its instructions) that would directly contradict so (by excluding people with no current income).

 

Of course, the circumstances and possible combinations of:

1. past (recent) income

2. current income

3. assets

4. skill/education/heritage/entrepreneurship

are endless therefore AO still needs to make a final decision who is "credible" to sign 864 contract.

 

But again, if there were certain groups (i.e. currently unemployed)  that should be excluded, then AOs hands would have been tied by clear regulations that state so. There are is nothing in the text (unless I failed to see it clearly) that says so and I'm not willing to extrapolate meanings into something else especially when the purpose and the form in its entirety makes total logic sense to me as it is.

[Punisher 40]

12 hours ago, pushbrk said:

IMO, what you are failing to see, is the words "you are using to meet the requirements of this affidavit..." on page 7 item 7 of the I-864 instructions.

 

Since the foreign income that will not continue from the same source is not going to help the petitioner or intending immigrant "qualify" the number entered should be $0.  That said, I do not think that putting a number in there other than $0 will get the affidavit rejected by NVC.  It will simply be a meaningless number not "considered" current income being used to qualify.

 

Your original assertion was "

Sponsor's foreign income does count towards 864, intending immigrant's does not (unless will continue after move to US). "

 

I would say only as a part of the totality of circumstances, not as "current income".  Current income only comes from a past tax return, if the sponsor is self employed.  Otherwise tax returns are also only part of the totality of circumstances.  In this case, the income that will not continue is not the petitioner's income.  It is the intending immigrants non-continuing income, so need not be mentioned at all.  They can simply skip the forward to the asset section.

Thank you so much for your quote pushbrk! At last something I can work off. 

 

Based on that quote, when it comes to "continuing"+"current income" requirement I have to say YOU ARE 100% RIGHT and I WAS WRONG! Mea culpa, I fully admit that and I will have to "punish" myself somehow that I have missed that.

It is worth noting though, that "continuing"+"current income" refers to both stateside and foreign income, not foreign income alone, and that's why IMO 864 never singles out the latter one for that requirement.

 

With that being said I do want to point out the following circumstance (that's the situation that was always on my mind when I responded to these issues):

As I have said before, low foreign earner would be probably denied anyway. On the other hand, high foreign earning USC individual could easily state (and be reasonably expected to fully act on) that while USC indeed plans on returning to US in the foreseeable future (therefore end that current form of employment) he will maintain it for just a little bit longer while looking out to secure a new job in US. Unless that USC "lost" domicile and needs to reestablish it, then there is nothing that prohibits that Sponsor from doing so and prevents Applicant entering US on their own. Because the employment is current and will continue into near future (although Sponsor admits it is close-ended) and at the same time AO needs to make decision based on what is presented, IMO that foreign income could and should be included on 864 (despite short term perspective) and would likely be approved. Again, totality of the circumstances plays role and it would be irresponsible for the Sponsor to abandon high paying job without securing a new one. 

 

On the other hand, I think I have seen you saying (if I've got that correctly) that Sponsor must be employed and that recent past 3 returns will not qualify. Is there anything in 864 that would support that claim? I have already provided a quote from i-864 that clearly shows "if your current household income OR tax returns are higher than PGs..." Putting aside totality of circumstances where (i guess most) people often get rejected, is there anything that clearly says that i.e. currently unemployed USC Petitioner that has "fat" recent 3 returns would not qualify, as in the examples B/C I gave in my reply to geowrian above?

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Punisher

[pushbrk 12,876]

11 hours ago, Punisher said:

Thank you so much for your quote pushbrk! At last something I can work off. 

 

Based on that quote, when it comes to "continuing"+"current income" requirement I have to say YOU ARE 100% RIGHT and I WAS WRONG! Mea culpa, I fully admit that and I will have to "punish" myself somehow that I have missed that.

It is worth noting though, that "continuing"+"current income" refers to both stateside and foreign income, not foreign income alone, and that's why IMO 864 never singles out the latter one for that requirement.

 

With that being said I do want to point out the following circumstance (that's the situation that was always on my mind when I responded to these issues):

As I have said before, low foreign earner would be probably denied anyway. On the other hand, high foreign earning USC individual could easily state (and be reasonably expected to fully act on) that while USC indeed plans on returning to US in the foreseeable future (therefore end that current form of employment) he will maintain it for just a little bit longer while looking out to secure a new job in US. Unless that USC "lost" domicile and needs to reestablish it, then there is nothing that prohibits that Sponsor from doing so and prevents Applicant entering US on their own. Because the employment is current and will continue into near future (although Sponsor admits it is close-ended) and at the same time AO needs to make decision based on what is presented, IMO that foreign income could and should be included on 864 (despite short term perspective) and would likely be approved. Again, totality of the circumstances plays role and it would be irresponsible for the Sponsor to abandon high paying job without securing a new one. 

 

On the other hand, I think I have seen you saying (if I've got that correctly) that Sponsor must be employed and that recent past 3 returns will not qualify. Is there anything in 864 that would support that claim? I have already provided a quote from i-864 that clearly shows "if your current household income OR tax returns are higher than PGs..." Putting aside totality of circumstances where (i guess most) people often get rejected, is there anything that clearly says that i.e. currently unemployed USC Petitioner that has "fat" recent 3 returns would not qualify, as in the examples B/C I gave in my reply to geowrian above?

 

Once the visa is issued, th visa applicant is not allowed to enter the US ahead of the petitioner under any circumstances.

 

Nothing is mentioned about continuing income in any other context than foreign income continuing from the same source once in the USA.  Although your theory seems reasonable, and you make a good argument for it, there is no substitute for actually knowing how Consular Officers do their jobs and how things actually work.  Maybe take a look at the anonymous quote in my signature.

 

Although this is a discussion group and discussion is welcome, that does not mean the senior members are required to DEFEND their "help" to the junior members unless that junior member is the one who started the topic.  If you want to help people, and it seems you do, may I suggest learning the process and how it actually works as your starting point.

[pushbrk 12,876]

12 hours ago, Punisher said:

TO be clear: the word "current" in the example above refers to currently applicable PG at the time of Adjudication, and is not to be extrapolated to "current income"

 

(for i-864 purposes) You are confusing the "current income" with general "income" requirement which is broadly defined (rightfully so) that consists of combination of past income/current income/assets .

Nowhere does it say you must have "current income" to qualify as Sponsor. 

 

And You must have missed form i-864 page 5 Part 7

If one assumes that only Sponsors with "current income" qualify then it would be POINTLESS to put "or 24.a - 24.c" and ask people for past tax returns or Assets. Why does it ask then?

To determine one's eligibility to sign the 864 contract you look at the full picture.

 

A. Currently stateside employed USC, first job ever (no tax returns, no assets) documenting "current income" at 25k might very well be rejected as sponsor by AOs even though meeting 125% PG.

 

B. Currently UNemployed (reason is irrelevant) USC that shows last 3 tax returns at 200k each, (no assets) will likely IMO be approved.

 

C. Currently UNemployed (reason is irrelevant) USC that did not have to file taxes for past 3 years (low probability but still possible) that proves 5mil in net assets (i.e. inheritance) will likely be IMO approved.

 

Based on your narrow definition of  what "income" (for i-864) should be then scenarios B and C would have to be denied right away with simple explanation "unemployed". 

 

Why is it that:

1. I am finding direct quotes from instructions or i-864 itself that contradict your unjustified extrapolations of meanings and at the same time no one so far was able to quote piece of text that would contradict what I say.. 

2. Gov't which makes the forms (IMO) pretty clear not even once bothered to say you must maintain "current income" to qualify

3. The whole picture of 864 is clear: You meet "income" requirement by showing past income or combination of "current income" plus assets.

 

No amount of assets, past or current income is a guarantee that Sponsor's financial condition would not end up be a disaster in the near future.

But a person with excellent financial health so far (3 past returns) and no current income is as good (worthy, credible) a candidate to sign 864 obligation, as any reasonable AO would correctly assume that the skill/education/heritage/entrepreneurship that make help the sponsor make recent "fat" earnings will continue in the future and there is absolutely nothing in legal terms (i-864 or its instructions) that would directly contradict so (by excluding people with no current income).

 

Of course, the circumstances and possible combinations of:

1. past (recent) income

2. current income

3. assets

4. skill/education/heritage/entrepreneurship

are endless therefore AO still needs to make a final decision who is "credible" to sign 864 contract.

 

But again, if there were certain groups (i.e. currently unemployed)  that should be excluded, then AOs hands would have been tied by clear regulations that state so. There are is nothing in the text (unless I failed to see it clearly) that says so and I'm not willing to extrapolate meanings into something else especially when the purpose and the form in its entirety makes total logic sense to me as it is.

Never thought I would find myself saying this.  "It depends on what you think the definition of 'is' is."  As a present tense word, "is" in the sentence means the same as current because "is" is a present tense term.  In an immigrant visa case, the affidavit of support is "adjudicated" by a Consular Officer at the interview, not by NVC. It is common for Consular Officers to ask about the current employment status of the sponsor, at interview and will be very common now that so many interviews have been delayed and so many have lost their jobs since submitting the I-864 to NVC.

 

I have long advised that applicants carry the most current pay stub to the interview for just this purpose.

 

If you want to study something to clarify some of the issues you present false queries about, try the applicable sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual, Consular Officers follow to do their jobs.  It's available to you. 

 

Consular Officers have broad discretion in considering the totality of circumstances, and different IV units use different standards.  If interviewing in Mumbai and have a sponsor without three past years of qualifying income and current income, you will likely need a qualified joint sponsor who does.  Depending on the circumstances, any Consular Officer at ANY post can require just that.  The public charge question is ALWAYS a judgment call.

[Ryan H 3,812]

***From this point on, replies in this thread are to be addressed to the OP; if other things are belabored any further, Administrative Action may be applied.***

[B&C2017 123]

On 6/18/2020 at 6:12 AM, tmac99 said:

Yes @B&C2017. My wife and I are in similar position as you, and we just got DQ. We live in Canada, for income we put 0 and in pen wrote foreign income. My wife and I are using assets, and the NVC basically said it's up to the consular to decide if the assets are applicable and not them (they are just checking documents).  That said, I did get an RFE of employment income for my wife even though we are in Canada and I had to use her paystub. 

 

Good luck with your journey. You are getting close! 

 

 

Thank you very much for your feedback and good luck for you guys as well! 🍀

Edited June 19, 2020 by B&C2017