I-864 Assets

[pushbrk 13,374]

56 minutes ago, appleblossom said:

That’s great, congrats. But many others haven’t been so lucky, so @OldUser’s advice is good. 

The fact is that assets alone are accepted.  Not always on the first attempt, but when the assets are the kind that DO qualify, they do work.  It's also a fact that people with plenty of liquid assets are understandably reluctant to involve and obligate another responsible adult relative or friend unnecessarily.  "Get a joint sponsor" is much easier for an uninvolved VJ member to type than it is for a petitioner to actually accomplish.

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 3/27/2025 at 3:24 PM, appleblossom said:

That’s great, congrats. But many others haven’t been so lucky, so @OldUser’s advice is good. 

His advice is not good at all if you don't need a joint sponsor. Many will get a 221g because the consular officer will not let you explain your asset situation. It's easy to overcome a 221g joint sponsor when using assets . You have to simplify your assets in a letter of explanation, because they aren't accountants and will not decipher your bank records.
So no, Olduser's advice is not good.

[OldUser 8,818]

Just now, Larry and Marides said:

 It's easy to overcome a 221g joint sponsor when using assets .

I would disagree with this statement.

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/21/2025 at 11:14 PM, OldUser said:

Here's recent example of somebody getting 221g on assets only:

Delete this quote. It's not a good example.

 

 

 

D

[Larry and Marides 22]

1 minute ago, OldUser said:

I would disagree with this statement.

That's because you don't know what your doing. You always take the easy way out with the Joint Sponsor card. Stop disenfranchising people.

Edited April 7 by Larry and Marides

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/21/2025 at 11:14 PM, OldUser said:

Here's recent example of somebody getting 221g on assets only:

Hey people, disregard his negativity. We were approved on assets only with a tax return income of only 14,000 dollars. Qualifying on assets is easy if you simple submit an explanation of assets. CO's are not accountants. They want a simple explanation. They don't want to decipher your brokerage, cd's, IRA 401K 403b accounts. They don't want 100 page brokeraher pages to read.

 

 

 

 

[Larry and Marides 22]

Here is the exact example of the letter I used to overcome a 221g for joint sponsor. My tax return only showed 14000 income, but I had significant cash assets. My income appears low because I'm retired and using cash.
 

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Date]

Consular Officer
[Embassy/Consulate Name]
[Address]
[City, Country]

Subject: Response to 221(g) Request – Demonstration of Financial Qualification Without Joint Sponsor

Dear Consular Officer,

I am writing to address the 221(g) notice issued on [date], requesting a joint sponsor for my Immigrant Visa application (Case Number: XXXXXXX). I respectfully assert that I qualify fully under the financial requirements outlined in 9 FAM 601.14 using my liquid assets, and as such, a joint sponsor should not be necessary.

Financial Qualification Through Liquid Assets

As per 9 FAM 601.14, I am permitted to meet the Affidavit of Support requirement by demonstrating ownership of liquid or readily convertible assets that exceed the income shortfall by the applicable multiplier (3x for spousal cases). My liquid assets far exceed the poverty guideline thresholds and income shortfall, as outlined below:

1. Required Income (125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines): [$ Amount]

2. My Liquid Assets: [$ Amount]

   • This is equivalent to [X] times the required poverty level threshold.

3. Asset Conversion Calculation:

   • Required Assets (3x the income shortfall): [$ Amount]

   • My Assets: [$ Amount], which exceeds this requirement by a significant margin.

Details of Liquid Assets

• Bank Accounts:

  • [Bank Name], Total Balance: [$ Amount]

  • Documentation: [12 months of statements, bank certification letters]

• Investment Accounts:

  • [Institution Name], Total Balance: [$ Amount]

  • Documentation: [Statements and portfolio summaries]

• Other Assets (if applicable): [Details]

Supporting Documentation

I have attached the following documents for your review:

• Form I-864 Affidavit of Support (already submitted)

• Bank and investment account statements

• Letters from financial institutions verifying balances

• Any additional evidence of asset ownership

Request for Reevaluation

Given that my assets unequivocally meet the financial requirements without the need for a joint sponsor, I kindly request a reevaluation of my case. I hope this letter clarifies my financial eligibility and that my application may proceed without further delay.

If additional information or clarification is required, I am available to provide it promptly. Please do not hesitate to contact me at [Your Phone Number] or [Your Email Address].

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]

[OldUser 8,818]

36 minutes ago, Larry and Marides said:

That's because you don't know what your doing. You always take the easy way out with the Joint Sponsor card. Stop disenfranchising people.

The reason asset related threads exist is because consular officers routinely reject assets. If you had a positive experience - great, but I wouldn't interpolate it on everybody. Joint sponsor is the most reliable and efficient way of getting I-864 resolved whether you like it or not. Majority of lawyers also recommend going this path.

Edited April 7 by OldUser

[Larry and Marides 22]

Just now, OldUser said:

The reason asset related threads exist is because consular officers routinely reject assets. If you had a positive experience - great, but I wouldn't interpolate it on everybody. Joint sponsor is the most reliable and efficient way of getting I-864 resolved whether you like it or not. Majority of lawyers also recommend going this path.

 

[OldUser 8,818]

@Larry and Marides instead of going back and forth in this thread, can you please try helping the person in this thread who struggled using assets and now got I-485 denial?

 

Peace

 

[Larry and Marides 22]

1 minute ago, Larry and Marides said:

That's why successful people don't need a lawyer. Joint Sponsor is the easy way out. The reason why consular officers routinely reject assets is because people send many pages of assets, brokerage accounts etc. They don't want to go through a bunch of statements. Keep it simple

 

[OldUser 8,818]

15 minutes ago, Larry and Marides said:

That's why successful people don't need a lawyer. Joint Sponsor is the easy way out. The reason why consular officers routinely reject assets is because people send many pages of assets, brokerage accounts etc. They don't want to go through a bunch of statements. Keep it simple

Again, opinions may vary on this. People around me consider me successful. I naturalized recently. For both AOS and N-400 I used lawyer. Because I can afford it. I could complete all the forms myself and represent myself at interviews. But I don't think lawyer is a bad idea, if one has means to pay for a quality service.

 

Joint Sponsor is a definitely easy way out. Why fight the current if you can win on first try?

Edited April 7 by OldUser

[S2N 89]

Multiple people can be right here. @pushbrk is right in his earlier reply that people who could qualify by having large amounts of assets probably don’t want to involve a joint sponsor for non-immigration related reasons. @Larry and Marides is correct that it’s possible to prove to the government that you meet a regulation they have to follow even if they don’t want to follow it, and the best way to do it is to explicitly spell out for them how you meet a regulation they might not even be aware of. This is useful for people who have non-immigration reasons to not involve a joint sponsor or who can’t. 

 

But @OldUser’s point is arguably the strongest here and one I’ve said a few times recently related to tax questions: it is usually the path of least resistance to give the government the most common and easiest response that meets their request rather than to have a drawn-out argument with a consular official. Most of the people who will have I-864 issues are going to be people in school, middle-aged people living abroad, and retirees.

 

Of those three groups, the only one where fighting with the government over whether your assets comply with the FAM rules might be easiest is retirees, who are also a lower percentage of applicants. For most people, a joint sponsor is the easiest and most effective way, and if it’s feasible and there’s not a reason unrelated to immigration to not find a joint sponsor, it’s probably the best option.

Edited April 7 by S2N

[Larry and Marides 22]

3 hours ago, OldUser said:

Again, opinions may vary on this. People around me consider me successful. I naturalized recently. For both AOS and N-400 I used lawyer. Because I can afford it. I could complete all the forms myself and represent myself at interviews. But I don't think lawyer is a bad idea, if one has means to pay for a quality service.

 

Joint Sponsor is a definitely easy way out. Why fight the current if you can win on first try?

Teach people how to use assets instead of telling everyone to get a joint sponsor. I respect your experience and perspective, especially having successfully navigated both AOS and N-400 with legal representation. It's true that for many, hiring a competent immigration attorney can streamline the process—provided the attorney offers quality, personalized service.

However, while a joint sponsor may seem like the path of least resistance, it is not always the most appropriate or sustainable solution. The reality is that many applicants simply do not have access to a joint sponsor, and more importantly, many don’t actually need one. The law provides clear pathways for petitioners to qualify based on their own income or assets, including retirement income, investment holdings, and other verifiable financial resources. The problem often arises when legal representatives fail to fully explore or advocate these alternatives—whether due to oversight, expedience, or a one-size-fits-all mentality.

Fighting the current isn’t about being contrarian. It’s about asserting your eligibility within the framework of the law when your circumstances justify it. It's about ensuring the system works as intended, especially for those who don’t have the resources or support structures others might take for granted. Many have had cases derailed or delayed because attorneys defaulted to joint sponsorship rather than building a case around the petitioner’s actual financial capacity.

So while opinions may vary, and some may view joint sponsorship as a quicker route, the deeper issue is whether legal professionals are acting in the best interest of the applicant—or simply taking the easy way out themselves. For those who can meet the requirements independently, that path is not just viable—it’s often the most prudent and empowering one.

Edited April 7 by Larry and Marides

[Larry and Marides 22]

3 hours ago, S2N said:

Multiple people can be right here. @pushbrk is right in his earlier reply that people who could qualify by having large amounts of assets probably don’t want to involve a joint sponsor for non-immigration related reasons. @Larry and Marides is correct that it’s possible to prove to the government that you meet a regulation they have to follow even if they don’t want to follow it, and the best way to do it is to explicitly spell out for them how you meet a regulation they might not even be aware of. This is useful for people who have non-immigration reasons to not involve a joint sponsor or who can’t. 

 

But @OldUser’s point is arguably the strongest here and one I’ve said a few times recently related to tax questions: it is usually the path of least resistance to give the government the most common and easiest response that meets their request rather than to have a drawn-out argument with a consular official. Most of the people who will have I-864 issues are going to be people in school, middle-aged people living abroad, and retirees.

 

Of those three groups, the only one where fighting with the government over whether your assets comply with the FAM rules might be easiest is retirees, who are also a lower percentage of applicants. For most people, a joint sponsor is the easiest and most effective way, and if it’s feasible and there’s not a reason unrelated to immigration to not find a joint sponsor, it’s probably the best option.

Old user is not the strongest. Don't be weak. Be assertive. It doesn't take much effort to write a letter of explanation. Actually, based on feedback it's actually better to submit the letter of assets explanation when submitting the initial documents. 

However, while a joint sponsor may seem like the path of least resistance, it is not always the most appropriate or sustainable solution. The reality is that many applicants simply do not have access to a joint sponsor, and more importantly, many don’t actually need one. The law provides clear pathways for petitioners to qualify based on their own income or assets, including retirement income, investment holdings, and other verifiable financial resources. The problem often arises when legal representatives fail to fully explore or advocate these alternatives—whether due to oversight, expedience, or a one-size-fits-all mentality.

Fighting the current isn’t about being contrarian. It’s about asserting your eligibility within the framework of the law when your circumstances justify it. It's about ensuring the system works as intended, especially for those who don’t have the resources or support structures others might take for granted. Many have had cases derailed or delayed because attorneys defaulted to joint sponsorship rather than building a case around the petitioner’s actual financial capacity.

So while opinions may vary, and some may view joint sponsorship as a quicker route, the deeper issue is whether legal professionals are acting in the best interest of the applicant—or simply taking the easy way out themselves. For those who can meet the requirements independently, that path is not just viable—it’s often the most prudent and empowering one. I have already taught 10 people how to write a proper letter of explanation, and they have been successful. 

Edited April 7 by Larry and Marides