Visa refused due to lack of income

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

25 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

Only the assets of the sponsor are considered.   

Assets of intending immigrant may be used (as long as they can be liquidated and moved to the US)

 

If your total household income does not meet the requirement, you may submit evidence of the value of your assets, the sponsored immigrant’s assets, and/or assets of a household member that can be used, if necessary, for the support of the intending immigrants. The value of assets of all of these persons may be combined in order to meet the necessary requirement.
Only assets that can be converted into cash within one year and without considerable hardship or financial loss to the owner may be included. The owner of the asset must include a description of the asset, proof of ownership, and the basis for the owner’s claim of its net cash value

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by SusieQQQ

[Crazy Cat 41,459]

24 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Assets of intending immigrant may be used (as long as they can be liquidated and moved to the US)

 

If your total household income does not meet the requirement, you may submit evidence of the value of your assets, the sponsored immigrant’s assets, and/or assets of a household member that can be used, if necessary, for the support of the intending immigrants. The value of assets of all of these persons may be combined in order to meet the necessary requirement.
Only assets that can be converted into cash within one year and without considerable hardship or financial loss to the owner may be included. The owner of the asset must include a description of the asset, proof of ownership, and the basis for the owner’s claim of its net cash value

 

 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware that a fiance could semi self-spnosor.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[payxibka 10,045]

4 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

Thanks.  I wasn't aware that a fiance could semi self-spnosor.

USCIS language doesn't always apply to what the consulate will or won't do. Secondarily,  the quoted section is from the i864 not the i134.  London has been about the only consulate to allow self sponsorship 

[Crazy Cat 41,459]

5 minutes ago, payxibka said:

USCIS language doesn't always apply to what the consulate will or won't do. Secondarily,  the quoted section is from the i864 not the i134.  London has been about the only consulate to allow self sponsorship 

Thanks.  I am still learning....I am a slow learner.....LOL.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

30 minutes ago, payxibka said:

USCIS language doesn't always apply to what the consulate will or won't do. Secondarily,  the quoted section is from the i864 not the i134.  London has been about the only consulate to allow self sponsorship 

But the i134 doesn’t mention the poverty guidelines or any other firm indication of required income anyway (it just says “sufficient”), so how do you reconcile being told they don’t earn enough with a dollar amount, unless you use the i864 guidelines?

Edited June 12, 2021 by SusieQQQ

[payxibka 10,045]

14 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

But the i134 doesn’t mention the poverty guidelines or any other firm indication of required income anyway (it just says “sufficient”), so how do you reconcile being told they don’t earn enough with a dollar amount, unless you use the i864 guidelines?

Because the consulate decides locally what is or isn't acceptable.   Some consulates may adopt i864 guidelines (100% or 125%) but whatever they do in the end it is a local decision.  Manila for example, doesn't ask for financial information at all but in a rare few situations. 

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

21 minutes ago, payxibka said:

Because the consulate decides locally what is or isn't acceptable.   Some consulates may adopt i864 guidelines (100% or 125%) but whatever they do in the end it is a local decision.  Manila for example, doesn't ask for financial information at all but in a rare few situations. 

So your opinion is that it is variable and some consulates may or may not use some part of the i864 guidelines as they see fit. Doesn’t sound very determinate at all to be able to categorically say no one will use something just because it is “in i864 and not i134”, given that nothing but a vague term - referring both income and financial resources btw - is actually in i134. I certainly would not discourage someone from at least trying to use assets based on that.

[SalishSea 17,652]

22 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

So your opinion is that it is variable and some consulates may or may not use some part of the i864 guidelines as they see fit. Doesn’t sound very determinate at all to be able to categorically say no one will use something just because it is “in i864 and not i134”, given that nothing but a vague term - referring both income and financial resources btw - is actually in i134. I certainly would not discourage someone from at least trying to use assets based on that.

They can certainly try, but it could backfire when it comes to AOS.

[Ontarkie 14,175]

~~Hijack post removed. Please start your own thread for questions regarding your own case~~

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

1 hour ago, Jorgedig said:

They can certainly try, but it could backfire when it comes to AOS.

I don’t understand this comment. Can you explain how it will backfire if they are using the same guidelines as the i864, which is what I presume you are referring to “backfiring”? 

[SalishSea 17,652]

1 hour ago, SusieQQQ said:

I don’t understand this comment. Can you explain how it will backfire if they are using the same guidelines as the i864, which is what I presume you are referring to “backfiring”? 

What I mean is more hypothetical - if the 'relaxed' requirements for the I-134 (i.e non-binding) enables someone who is borderline to get a visa, it may not work out so well when they adjust status, where the I-864 is used.

 

Like @payxibka, the sponsorship issue for K visa applicants is very much consulate-specific.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

34 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

What I mean is more hypothetical - if the 'relaxed' requirements for the I-134 (i.e non-binding) enables someone who is borderline to get a visa, it may not work out so well when they adjust status, where the I-864 is used.

 

Like @payxibka, the sponsorship issue for K visa applicants is very much consulate-specific.

If you go back and look at the conversation, I actually suggested using the i864 guidelines. That's why I don’t understand why you said my suggestion would be borderline when it would be in line with what it required for AOS . Payxiba was the one saying they may or may not use them.

[SalishSea 17,652]

35 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

If you go back and look at the conversation, I actually suggested using the i864 guidelines. That's why I don’t understand why you said my suggestion would be borderline when it would be in line with what it required for AOS . Payxiba was the one saying they may or may not use them.

Your suggestion could backfire because the consulates do not uniformly use the I-864 to adjudicate K visa interviews.  

 

 

 

[payxibka 10,045]

4 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

So your opinion is that it is variable and some consulates may or may not use some part of the i864 guidelines as they see fit. Doesn’t sound very determinate at all to be able to categorically say no one will use something just because it is “in i864 and not i134”, given that nothing but a vague term - referring both income and financial resources btw - is actually in i134. I certainly would not discourage someone from at least trying to use assets based on that.

My comments were limited to the ability to self sponsor,  which has typically only been allowed by London 

[CrisBR 30]

On 6/11/2021 at 3:27 PM, JT1990 said:

Hi everyone. Due to CoVid 19 my fiance only made ~$18k in 2020, and our visa petition has been "refused pending a review of the following documentation". We have been advised to provide examples of additional savings and a job offer, but were not given a dollar amount for what would be considered sufficient savings. Does anyone have experience with this? Our families are willing to gift us the required amount, but we do not have another US citizen willing to be a co-sponsor.

Hello. I’d say if you have enough money in the bank account (savings) to prove you meet the minimum requirement, plus any other assets, you’d be fine. 

However, an employment letter as proof of consistent earning is the type of document they like to see.

I have seen cases of people who had the employment letter and bank statements to prove they met the requirements and those were enough to help them get approved.