IR1/CR1 From Abroad/Petitioner abroad during interview

[pushbrk 13,157]

The other problem associated with the petitioner living and working in Canada instead of the US, is that you'll need a qualified joint sponsor on the financial end.  Did you already sort that out?

[carmel34 3,657]

As @Lucky Cat pointed out, the consular officers in Montreal will make the final decision, whether the petitioner's US-based income is sufficient for a visa to be issued.  NVC only checks documents to make sure everything required is in the file before they send it on to the embassy or consulate abroad.  Montreal has always been a long wait for an interview, and it is backed up longer than normal because of the pandemic, so it could be a very long time before the interview is scheduled.  In that time the petitioner could have returned to the US and have a job there with sufficient income to be sole sponsor.  They will most likely ask about the petitioner's current US income and proof of that.  It would be a good idea to take an updated I-864 to the visa interview, as from your questions it sounds like their income has changed since the original I-864 was sent in.  Evidence of the petitioner's sufficient, current, US-based income (letter from employer, pay stubs) and/or a co-sponsor's I-864 plus financial documents will be required at the interview, so be prepared accordingly or risk delays.

Edited January 1, 2021 by carmel34

[corrheag 2]

Thank you so much! This makes perfect sense. We need the extra time to plan next steps accordingly. So, in our case the long wait is a good idea. I know it will be complicated, but at least now I have a clearer idea of what we need to do. 

 

I really appreciate everyone's advice. 

 

Warm regards, 

[NikLR 13,232]

As there is currently a long wait for interviews in Montreal, going back after a DQ or the NVC stage will mean a 5-8 month separation but also may provide the opportunity the USC needs for domicile and sponsorship. If you can quarantine while the USC spouse visits Canada that would probably be easiest for continued visiting. 

[SalishSea 18,187]

6 hours ago, corrheag said:

Definitely appreciate the honest view of the challenges ahead. It's interesting because his i-864 was approved months ago. So, literally, it's just the interview left at this point. I'm looking at the questions asked at the Montreal Consulate on this forum, and they seem to be quite standard, where did you meet, what does your spouse do for a living, etc.  I agree that the best strategy is for my spouse to head back to the US before the interview, but I'm wondering if overthinking can complicate the interview process. 

I-864 'approval' at NVC level, is just a documentary approval.  The application of the public charge, taking into account the totality of circumstances, is evaluated by the consular officer.

[edizon1 4]

US Domicile will probably be questioned. That's what happened to me during my interview. My husband was deployed in the middle east at that time and the consul wanted more evidence that he would be coming back or had returned to the US. Even I showed them his employment certificate that he's working in the US Airforce and US driver's license, these weren't enough to prove his US domicile. When he came back to the US, he asked his supervisor to write a letter that he returned to his home station and started working there again.

[Crazy Cat 42,470]

5 minutes ago, edizon1 said:

Even I showed them his employment certificate that he's working in the US Airforce and US driver's license,

Uh, yea.......That doesn't prove actually he lives or will live in the US.   Domicile means actually living in the US.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[corrheag 2]

Definitely appreciate everyone's advice. It is interesting, though. I lived in the US on a work permit for two years before going back to Canada to give birth. It was relatively easier (particularly compared to Canada) to get a job above the poverty line in the US. To add, It is not cheap to sponsor someone, and it's very time consuming. One would think interview-wise it would be easier for petitioners and sponsors abroad because they are giving up an established life to move back home, and like someone else mentioned, the marriage is genuine, compared to ones already in the US (inbound applications) who may be subject to more fraud. 

[angeljolie 188]

9 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

Uh, yea.......That doesn't prove actually he lives or will live in the US.   Domicile means actually living in the US.

This is not always true. My friend, who's married to a USC working in the US Air Force,  got both her green card (2015) and US citizenship (2016) while they were both living in Okinawa, Japan (Kadena Air Base). 

[Chancy 6,243]

10 hours ago, angeljolie said:

This is not always true. My friend, who's married to a USC working in the US Air Force,  got both her green card (2015) and US citizenship (2016) while they were both living in Okinawa, Japan (Kadena Air Base). 

 

Yes, there are certain types of employment abroad counted as domiciled in the US, such as military deployment and missionary work, but the assignment must be temporary --

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/step-1-submit-a-petition/i-864-affidavit-faqs.html#aos21

 

[Crazy Cat 42,470]

11 hours ago, angeljolie said:

This is not always true. My friend, who's married to a USC working in the US Air Force,  got both her green card (2015) and US citizenship (2016) while they were both living in Okinawa, Japan (Kadena Air Base). 

 Thanks..  Of course there are exceptions to actually inside the US.......this is not the case for the OP.....whose situation we are discussing.  The OP also has a larger issue- qualified sponsorship with sufficient current US income. 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[carmel34 3,657]

19 hours ago, corrheag said:

One would think interview-wise it would be easier for petitioners and sponsors abroad because they are giving up an established life to move back home

Unfortunately, that's not how financial sponsorship requirements are viewed by US immigration officers.  The key questions when looking at the public charge issue are the financial resources available to support the intending immigrant in the US, following immigration (if approved).  A petitioner living abroad whose income will not continue once returning to the US will be viewed accordingly.  How will the petitioner support the immigrant financially without a job in the US?  It's not that different from an unemployed petitioner who lives in the US.  This is why the petitioner often has to return to the US before the beneficiary, to get a job and provide evidence (such as six months of recent pay stubs), to demonstrate his or her ability to financially support the immigrant.  Or get a qualified co-sponsor who lives in the US.  This is why it is more difficult for petitioners living abroad to be sole financial sponsors, not easier.

Edited January 3, 2021 by carmel34

[corrheag 2]

10 minutes ago, carmel34 said:

Unfortunately, that's not how financial sponsorship requirements are viewed by US immigration officers.  The key questions when looking at the public charge issue are the financial resources available to support the intending immigrant in the US, following immigration (if approved).  A petitioner living abroad whose income will not continue once returning to the US will be viewed accordingly.  How will the petitioner support the immigrant financially without a job in the US?  It's not that different from an unemployed petitioner who lives in the US.  This is why the petitioner often has to return to the US before the beneficiary, to get a job and provide evidence (such as six months of recent pay stubs), to demonstrate his or her ability to financially support the immigrant.  Or get a qualified co-sponsor who lives in the US.  This is why it is more difficult for petitioners living abroad to be sole financial sponsors, not easier.

Thanks for your honest perspective. 

 

OK. I know what I have to do, but I'm simply just trying to look at all angles first.

 

So, even if my spouse gives me a copy of his job offer in the US with a start date, and the income is well above the poverty line, and even if I present income (I work remotely) from a company based in the US that is above the poverty line, they may still require a co-sponsor, or they may delay my application and ask for the petitioner to provide pay stubs. I know we would have to present an updated i-864 as well. 

 

Thanks so much! 

[angeljolie 188]

12 hours ago, Chancy said:

Yes, there are certain types of employment abroad counted as domiciled in the US, such as military deployment and missionary work, but the assignment must be temporary --

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/step-1-submit-a-petition/i-864-affidavit-faqs.html#aos21

 

My husband had to quote that part in his response to NVC after they rejected his proof of domicile explanation. He submitted the same document for me, which NVC approved the day before they rejected it in our kids' cases. I hope the DOS automates their triage system. It could help speed up the process while training new employees at the same time.