Why are people getting rejected on assets only?

[jan22 3,064]

On 1/24/2025 at 7:59 PM, Larry and Marides said:

Thank you for your information. Please don't be offended by my response I'm kind of directing this towards the consular officers because it was a shock. 2 years of making sure every document was in order just for her to be rejected in one minute. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into your response just to help a complete stranger. Your advice is awesome.

A financial advisor told me that consular officers don't know how to analyze complex financial documents so they just issue a 221g which is easier.  Regarding the totality of the situation, significant assets are actually more secure than a job.  I have enough that if I just put them in a checking account, they would last 50 years. They are in a brokerage account so these assets will outlast me. Companies cut jobs all the time. During my whole career I have been laid off 5 times from several different companies. I was an Electronics Engineer in the defense sector. Programs get cut resulting in layoffs. I finally worked at a hospital as a Biomedical Equipment Engineer. My skill set is in demand, so if I needed to work again it wouldn't be a  problem. Jobs are not a guarantee of income. You can be be approved today and quit or get laid off tomorrow. I know this won't count but my wife will be working as a nurse at the hospital where I used to work. Severe shortage of nurses.

Regarding a catastrophic illness my spouse and I are fully insured with Blue Cross Blue Shield medical insurance .

My house is paid for with no mortgage. I'm not relying on my house as part of my assets, as I have enough liquid assets that the house is irrelevant.

I documented with official brokerage letters that restrictions and penalties are not present for withdrawal from the brokerage and IRA funds.  I Documented the current value, and  the historic growth/balances of the funds for the past 12 months and an average balance document for the past 10 years.  would be beneficial.  II documented that my funds, even with my current withdrawals are actually increasing because I have a my funds managed by a brokerage. All accounts are jointly held.

I Documented all assets in simplified form in a cover letter. Also included was my social security account documenting that I'm qualified to receive SS in July. 

I wonder if he really looked at all the documents?

Thank you for your input

 

No worries — your response did not offend me, nor do I disagree with a major portion of what you said.  It is not, however, the way a consular officer will usually look at a case — you have to convince them.  Please do not  start from the premise of your financial advisor regarding the inability of consular officers to understand complex financial documents.  While there are some that are less financially savvy than others, generally speaking your advisor’s viewpoint is inaccurate (and, if communicated in any way to the officer would be rude and condescending, which I’m sure you don’t want to be). There may be times when an officer wants/needs additional time after the interview to review everything more thoroughly or wants the information reviewed by a more senior consular manager.

 

I would not engage in the debate as to whether brokerage funds are more secure than an income stream through employment in the response to the 221g.  Yes, you can be (and were) laid off or quit — but you, obviously, found other employment.  If a brokerage account fails or loses assets for any reason, it’s not as easily replaced.  Rather than make that part of your rebuttal response, I would urge you to focus on the latter part of your second paragraph — your re-employability, if needed; your wife’s employment potential (does she have an actual job offer/contract — if so, include a copy; is she already licensed as a nurse in the state — if so, include that information); your full health insurance coverage; your pending SS payment; and, of course, a restatement of your assets as outlined in your final paragraphs.

 

Edited 23 hours ago by jan22

[Larry and Marides 15]

17 hours ago, jan22 said:

No worries — your response did not offend me, nor do I disagree with a major portion of what you said.  It is not, however, the way a consular officer will usually look at a case — you have to convince them.  Please do not  start from the premise of your financial advisor regarding the inability of consular officers to understand complex financial documents.  While there are some that are less financially savvy than others, generally speaking your advisor’s viewpoint is inaccurate (and, if communicated in any way to the officer would be rude and condescending, which I’m sure you don’t want to be). There may be times when an officer wants/needs additional time after the interview to review everything more thoroughly or wants the information reviewed by a more senior consular manager.

 

I would not engage in the debate as to whether brokerage funds are more secure than an income stream through employment in the response to the 221g.  Yes, you can be (and were) laid off or quit — but you, obviously, found other employment.  If a brokerage account fails or loses assets for any reason, it’s not as easily replaced.  Rather than make that part of your rebuttal response, I would urge you to focus on the latter part of your second paragraph — your re-employability, if needed; your wife’s employment potential (does she have an actual job offer/contract — if so, include a copy; is she already licensed as a nurse in the state — if so, include that information); your full health insurance coverage; your pending SS payment; and, of course, a restatement of your assets as outlined in your final paragraphs.

 

My friend recommended that I speak to his acquaintance who's is an experienced immigration lawyer. The top 4 reasons of rejections using liquid assets
 

Why a 221(g) Was Issued Despite Your Qualification

1. Misinterpretation of Liquid Assets by the Consular Officer

   • The consular officer may have overlooked the liquid nature of your assets or doubted their convertibility to cash within 12 months.
   • Some officers may mistakenly assume that only income is acceptable, even though assets alone can qualify you if they meet the threshold.

2. Misapplication of Poverty Guidelines Multipliers

   • Officers may fail to recognize that assets must equal 3x the income shortfall for spousal cases (or 5x for other relatives).
   • With 50 times the poverty level, you overwhelmingly surpass this requirement, but the officer may not have calculated this correctly or overlooked the provision entirely.

3. Unfamiliarity with High Asset Cases

   • If your financial situation involves significant liquid assets (e.g., large investment accounts or substantial savings), the officer may not have encountered such cases often and might issue a 221(g simply out of caution or uncertainty.

4. Generic Use of a Joint Sponsor Request

   • Some consulates issue 221(g) for joint sponsors as a default request when income doesn’t meet the threshold, even if assets alone are sufficient because it is easier to submit a 221g than study the assets. That is why we see people rejected on liquid assets despite them being significantly over the poverty level.

[Larry and Marides 15]

17 hours ago, jan22 said:

No worries — your response did not offend me, nor do I disagree with a major portion of what you said.  It is not, however, the way a consular officer will usually look at a case — you have to convince them.  Please do not  start from the premise of your financial advisor regarding the inability of consular officers to understand complex financial documents.  While there are some that are less financially savvy than others, generally speaking your advisor’s viewpoint is inaccurate (and, if communicated in any way to the officer would be rude and condescending, which I’m sure you don’t want to be). There may be times when an officer wants/needs additional time after the interview to review everything more thoroughly or wants the information reviewed by a more senior consular manager.

 

I would not engage in the debate as to whether brokerage funds are more secure than an income stream through employment in the response to the 221g.  Yes, you can be (and were) laid off or quit — but you, obviously, found other employment.  If a brokerage account fails or loses assets for any reason, it’s not as easily replaced.  Rather than make that part of your rebuttal response, I would urge you to focus on the latter part of your second paragraph — your re-employability, if needed; your wife’s employment potential (does she have an actual job offer/contract — if so, include a copy; is she already licensed as a nurse in the state — if so, include that information); your full health insurance coverage; your pending SS payment; and, of course, a restatement of your assets as outlined in your final paragraphs.

 

Your statement, "If a brokerage account fails or loses assets for any reason, it’s not as easily replaced," does not universally apply, particularly to accounts that are well-balanced and diversified across multiple brokerage firms. Prudent investors, especially those nearing or in retirement, typically mitigate risks by allocating a significant portion—often at least 60%—of their portfolios into cash or cash-equivalent accounts that are entirely risk-free.

This strategy ensures that even in the event of a market downturn or crash, individuals maintain liquidity and have substantial reserves available. Such diversified and risk-mitigated approaches underscore the importance of a consular officer conducting thorough due diligence. A proper review of the individual’s assets should take into account their overall financial structure, including asset allocation, diversification, and the existence of secure, non-volatile holdings. This provides a more accurate representation of their financial stability and ability to support themselves during retirement.

Some consulates routinely issue a 221(g) request for a joint sponsor when the petitioner’s income does not meet the required threshold, even if assets alone are more than sufficient to cover the deficiency. This often occurs because issuing a 221(g) is procedurally easier than thoroughly evaluating the petitioner’s assets. As a result, we frequently see individuals rejected based on liquid assets, even when those assets far exceed the poverty guideline requirements. This highlights the importance of ensuring that consular officers are properly trained to assess assets accurately and fairly, as well as the need for petitioners to present their financial documentation in a clear, comprehensive, and easily verifiable manner.

Edited 5 hours ago by Larry and Marides