divorce

[denali_1963 0]

From what i gather is you are responsible for your fiance/husband for 10 years. What the hell u sign affedavit of suport for your health? No government dont' want to support your foriegn fiance or husband. You are totally responsible. Why do they want you to get it notarize? Unless fiance breaks the law and you can have them deported. I would assume you have to go through courts and ###### to get you to have to pay. I would think only if your spouse was on welfare or some kind of aid they could get you.

[meauxna 15]

From what i gather is you are responsible for your fiance/husband for 10 years. What the hell u sign affedavit of suport for your health? No government dont' want to support your foriegn fiance or husband. You are totally responsible. Why do they want you to get it notarize? Unless fiance breaks the law and you can have them deported. I would assume you have to go through courts and ###### to get you to have to pay. I would think only if your spouse was on welfare or some kind of aid they could get you.

hmmm, I didn't want to come back to this thread.

"10 years" is a rumor, or rather, a misinterpretation. It can be less, it can be more. The I-864 can follow the petitioner beyond the grave (their estate continues to hold responsibility under the contract).

"Totally responsible" is misleading; the Sponsor is *liable* to repay any means-tested benefits the alien claims AND collects IF the issuing agency sues to collect them. And I suspect they sue the alien first, but don't hold me to that one.

Shon, I'm disappointed in you. I stood up for you in your first run in here (rightfully so) and have always shown myself to you to be fair and a non-flamer if you recall our past conversations. I provide sources for my information beyond my own experiences and I typically don't argue minutia. This is an important error you made and it's unfair of you to not take the correction or provide proof for your point beyond the fact that you made 2 errors in doing this before.

All: since I'm not at my regular 'puter and am short on time, I refer you to the DCF Guide, where I have collected all the official FAQs on the I-864. You can read for yourself what the DoS and USCIS have to say about what events discharge the I-864 and let the Sponsor off the hook. Divorce and Removing Conditions are not included in that list.

D'oh, they are posted in post #2 of this thread. Thank you Alcurin!

m

Edited April 3, 2006 by meauxna

[denali_1963 0]

Ok i am not getting answer. Am i responsible for him or not? I am wondering why we sign this affidavit of support? Is it a joke or what? So they can only collect it if they sue? Who the government? If so this would take many years. What about credit cards? What am i exactly responsible for? Or maybe its a mystery.

[Alcurin 0]

Ok i am not getting answer. Am i responsible for him or not? I am wondering why we sign this affidavit of support? Is it a joke or what? So they can only collect it if they sue? Who the government? If so this would take many years. What about credit cards? What am i exactly responsible for? Or maybe its a mystery.

The government does not make you get the I-864 notarized becuase they intend to ignore it.

Read the I-864 package. The sponsor has to provide his/her Social Security number.

Why? Ever heard of garnishment?

Each state administers their own public benefits (translates to "welfare") program. Some are more generous than others. Some are also more likely to collect from an individual if that individual is liable for the benefits paid out.

The I-864 is a promise from the sponsor to the government. Only the government can release a sponsor from the liability for the beneficiary (unless one of the four conditions in post #2 of this thread are met).

Here is the text from the I-864:

"Civil Action to Enforce.

If the immigrant on whose behalf this affidavit of support is executed receives any Federal, State, or local means-tested public

benefit before this obligation terminates, the Federal, State, or local agency or private entity may request reimbursement from the

sponsor who signed this affidavit. If the sponsor fails to honor the request for reimbursement, the agency may sue the sponsor in

any U.S. District Court or any State court with jurisdiction of civil actions for breach of contract. INS will provide names, addresses,

and Social Security account numbers of sponsors to benefit-providing agencies for this purpose. Sponsors may also be liable for

paying the costs of collection, including legal fees.

Form I-864 (Rev. 11/05/01)Y Page 5

I acknowledge that section 213A(a)(1) B of the Act grants the sponsored immigrant(s) and any Federal, State,

local, or private agency that pays any means-tested public benefit to or on behalf of the sponsored immigrant(s)

standing to sue me for failing to meet my obligations under this affidavit of support. I agree to submit to the personal

jurisdiction of any court of the United States or of any State, territory, or possession of the United States if the court

has subject matter jurisdiction of a civil lawsuit to enforce this affidavit of support. I agree that no lawsuit to enforce

this affidavit of support shall be barred by any statute of limitations that might otherwise apply, so long as the

plaintiff initiates the civil lawsuit no later than ten (10) years after the date on which a sponsored immigrant last

received any means-tested public benefits.

Collection of Judgment.

I acknowledge that a plaintiff may seek specific performance of my support obligation. Furthermore, any money

judgment against me based on this affidavit of support may be collected through the use of a judgment lien under 28

U.S.C 3201, a writ of execution under 28 U.S.C 3203, a judicial installment payment order under 28 U.S.C 3204,

garnishment under 28 U.S.C 3205, or through the use of any corresponding remedy under State law. I may also be held liable for costs of collection, including attorney fees."

Still think that the I-864 is a joke?

[dmartmar 1]

The problem here is that the regulations are not subject to personal interpretation. Meauxna was perfectly entitled and doing everyone a service to correct Shonjaved's post, otherwise, others could think mistakenly that when an alien removes conditions the sponsor's obligation is satisfied. That is not correct.

In the instant case, and I am speculating, because I don't know the details. If Shon's husband was deported, leaving the US permanently would relieve Shon of the sponsor obligation. Naturally, that would not occur until he left. On the other hand if the reason for his deportation order was related to fraud, reported by the USC spouse, and if status was either denied or subsequently rescinded due to such a finding and he did not take the matter further, once the window of opportunity to appeal a denial or rescission had elapsed and he was without status, I believe the sponsor is off the hook, whether the alien leaves the country or not.

Where in my post did I write that personal interpretation is taken into consideration when it comes to regulations? Please point it out.

I said that some people post on VJ to strictly ask specific questions concerning the legalities of immigration and how these could or would work both for and against his/her individual situation/case, other people strictly post here specifically looking either for emotional and/or mental support, as well as seeking other people's advice, opinion(s) and objective view(s) in regards to his/her individual situation/case.

Everyone here on VJ is guilty of writing a post based only on speculation, which you did as well in the above post. So just b/c different people interpret things differently doesn't give anyone the right to disrespect, question, make fun of, belittle and/or argue another one's point of view or opinion.

[girl 37 7]

There'd be a lot of misinformation taken as fact if people didn't correct clearly wrong posts.

[dmartmar 1]

Shon, I'm disappointed in you. I stood up for you in your first run in here (rightfully so) and have always shown myself to you to be fair and a non-flamer if you recall our past conversations. I provide sources for my information beyond my own experiences and I typically don't argue minutia. This is an important error you made and it's unfair of you to not take the correction or provide proof for your point beyond the fact that you made 2 errors in doing this before.

Wow, I'm amazed by the fact that:

1. Shon's posts are taken personal, which in turn

2. Calls for a need to confront her and in front of everyone, its justification being

3. An accusation of misleading info. given, quickly followed by

4. Demanding an explanation and ordering her to correct it.

Incredible!

[babybunny 2]

Digs, sorry to hear but hey dude, better sooner than later. Whatever makes you happy

And sorry that your thread has been polluted by the VJ troll who just won't take a hint. (Yes, I meant you shon, get over yourself).

Take care digs!

excuse me sir, your the only troll I see if you dont like my postings dont read it.

I will post on here - just like you do sir!

From what i gather is you are responsible for your fiance/husband for 10 years. What the hell u sign affedavit of suport for your health? No government dont' want to support your foriegn fiance or husband. You are totally responsible. Why do they want you to get it notarize? Unless fiance breaks the law and you can have them deported. I would assume you have to go through courts and ###### to get you to have to pay. I would think only if your spouse was on welfare or some kind of aid they could get you.

hmmm, I didn't want to come back to this thread.

"10 years" is a rumor, or rather, a misinterpretation. It can be less, it can be more. The I-864 can follow the petitioner beyond the grave (their estate continues to hold responsibility under the contract).

"Totally responsible" is misleading; the Sponsor is *liable* to repay any means-tested benefits the alien claims AND collects IF the issuing agency sues to collect them. And I suspect they sue the alien first, but don't hold me to that one.

Shon, I'm disappointed in you. I stood up for you in your first run in here (rightfully so) and have always shown myself to you to be fair and a non-flamer if you recall our past conversations. I provide sources for my information beyond my own experiences and I typically don't argue minutia. This is an important error you made and it's unfair of you to not take the correction or provide proof for your point beyond the fact that you made 2 errors in doing this before.

All: since I'm not at my regular 'puter and am short on time, I refer you to the DCF Guide, where I have collected all the official FAQs on the I-864. You can read for yourself what the DoS and USCIS have to say about what events discharge the I-864 and let the Sponsor off the hook. Divorce and Removing Conditions are not included in that list.

D'oh, they are posted in post #2 of this thread. Thank you Alcurin!

m

you are the LAST person I need standing up for me. all you ever did was kick me.

so dont try to humour me.

you, raspberry and all your following clans leave me the HE11 alone!

[babybunny 2]

The problem here is that the regulations are not subject to personal interpretation. Meauxna was perfectly entitled and doing everyone a service to correct Shonjaved's post, otherwise, others could think mistakenly that when an alien removes conditions the sponsor's obligation is satisfied. That is not correct.

In the instant case, and I am speculating, because I don't know the details. If Shon's husband was deported, leaving the US permanently would relieve Shon of the sponsor obligation. Naturally, that would not occur until he left. On the other hand if the reason for his deportation order was related to fraud, reported by the USC spouse, and if status was either denied or subsequently rescinded due to such a finding and he did not take the matter further, once the window of opportunity to appeal a denial or rescission had elapsed and he was without status, I believe the sponsor is off the hook, whether the alien leaves the country or not.

Where in my post did I write that personal interpretation is taken into consideration when it comes to regulations? Please point it out.

I said that some people post on VJ to strictly ask specific questions concerning the legalities of immigration and how these could or would work both for and against his/her individual situation/case, other people strictly post here specifically looking either for emotional and/or mental support, as well as seeking other people's advice, opinion(s) and objective view(s) in regards to his/her individual situation/case.

Everyone here on VJ is guilty of writing a post based only on speculation, which you did as well in the above post. So just b/c different people interpret things differently doesn't give anyone the right to disrespect, question, make fun of, belittle and/or argue another one's point of view or opinion.

dmartmar,

The D. mermaid he was just speculating on my exs case. even if people are getting words a little messed up. this is not legal advise on here- its peoples experiances they are sharing. certainly, Dmermaid, raspberries, mexuana those guys are not attorneys. These people think they know everything in the world about everything. No one is allowed to know anything or experiance anything. I stand on my own two feet and speak up because, they are mean old men being hateful. see I am speculating too how does it feel.

SU GENTE!

[babybunny 2]

Shon, I'm disappointed in you. I stood up for you in your first run in here (rightfully so) and have always shown myself to you to be fair and a non-flamer if you recall our past conversations. I provide sources for my information beyond my own experiences and I typically don't argue minutia. This is an important error you made and it's unfair of you to not take the correction or provide proof for your point beyond the fact that you made 2 errors in doing this before.

Wow, I'm amazed by the fact that:

1. Shon's posts are taken personal, which in turn

2. Calls for a need to confront her and in front of everyone, its justification being

3. An accusation of misleading info. given, quickly followed by

4. Demanding an explanation and ordering her to correct it.

Incredible!

dmartmar,

thats because, they are hateful!!!!

to be fair and a non-flamer

that is the biggest joke- I have ever heard. non flamer where did you get that crock of poo from? all you and your clan do is flame. " non flamer " he sayes.

People can make so called errors. This board is not supposed to be tried and true legal advise support.

people ask advise from others to get a perspective of their situation or there ideas on something. some people can vent or disclose their whole personal life. people can take others experiances learn from it or toss it over their shoulder like a grain of salt. how dare me say anything then I am called a troll or being accused of Ranting.

[Welshcookie 17]

Shon, I'm disappointed in you. I stood up for you in your first run in here (rightfully so) and have always shown myself to you to be fair and a non-flame if you recall our past conversations. I provide sources for my information beyond my own experiences and I typically don't argue minutia. This is an important error you made and it's unfair of you to not take the correction or provide proof for your point beyond the fact that you made 2 errors in doing this before.

Wow, I'm amazed by the fact that:

1. Shon's posts are taken personal, which in turn

2. Calls for a need to confront her and in front of everyone, its justification being

3. An accusation of misleading info. given, quickly followed by

4. Demanding an explanation and ordering her to correct it.

Incredible!

dmartmar,

thats because, they are hateful!!!!

WOW....that's rich coming from you! Maybe you should re-visit MichelleandCraig's threads and look at your shameful comments on there....You hateful and a flamer?? no....surely not....

[TracyTN 237]

digi, I'm very sorry to hear about your divorce. I hope you are well otherwise. Feel free to PM me if you'd like.

Take care!

[reddiablo 0]

Digi

sounds like you ae oping just fine.

Seems to me we all have a chance of this happening to ourselves.

% of marriages that fail in first 2 years ??

also I fully intend to be a USA citizen asap.

when I emigrted to Canada in 1976 I became a citizen in 3 years

keep your spirits up "DIGI"

ALL THE BESTIES

RED D

[munchkins 0]

Thought you had not been around for quite a while and so sorry to hear of the news but good to hear it is amicable.

Good news on the job front though

[babybunny 2]

Shon, I'm disappointed in you. I stood up for you in your first run in here (rightfully so) and have always shown myself to you to be fair and a non-flame if you recall our past conversations. I provide sources for my information beyond my own experiences and I typically don't argue minutia. This is an important error you made and it's unfair of you to not take the correction or provide proof for your point beyond the fact that you made 2 errors in doing this before.

Wow, I'm amazed by the fact that:

1. Shon's posts are taken personal, which in turn

2. Calls for a need to confront her and in front of everyone, its justification being

3. An accusation of misleading info. given, quickly followed by

4. Demanding an explanation and ordering her to correct it.

Incredible!

dmartmar,

thats because, they are hateful!!!!

WOW....that's rich coming from you! Maybe you should re-visit MichelleandCraig's threads and look at your shameful comments on there....You hateful and a flamer?? no....surely not....

I dont regret anything i said on her postings. she was soo ready to toss her marriage in the trash.

instead of fixing it! I maintain my stance! I would never belittle my bingo in a dayum public forum.

see thats how she rolls.

Edited April 3, 2006 by shonjaved