221g with substantial assets (merged)

[Larry and Marides 22]

48 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Same subject

Same subject? Really?
Oh, I didn’t realize retirement status and taxable income strategies were interchangeable now. I must’ve missed the memo where cash in an IRA became the same as rental income. Maybe I’ll also submit a letter to the consulate asking them to treat apples like oranges while we’re at it.

The two statements present different situations.

Post 1:

• Focus: Primarily on the consular officer's refusal to consider the applicant's assets, specifically cash in a bank account, brokerage account, and IRA.
• Income: Mentions being retired and having income exceeding 125% of the poverty level.
• Sponsorship: Emphasizes that the applicant doesn't need a joint sponsor due to their financial resources.
• Timeline: States the applicant submitted 12 months of bank statements.

Post 2:

• Focus: More on the applicant's 2024 income, particularly dividends and rental income, exceeding the poverty level.
• Income: Highlights the applicant's 2023 taxable income and the expectation of a higher 2024 income.
• Sponsorship: Explicitly mentions the 221g requesting a joint sponsor despite the applicant's assets.
• Timeline: States the applicant submitted 2024 bank statements and a letter explaining their financial situation.
• Uncertainty: Expresses confusion about whether to submit bank statements or tax transcripts in response to the 221g.

Key Differences:

• Income Focus: Statement 1 emphasizes general income exceeding the poverty level, while Statement 2 focuses on specific income sources (dividends, rental income) and their increase in 2024.
• Timeline: Statement 1 mentions 12 months of bank statements, while Statement 2 focuses on 2024 bank statements.
• Specificity: Statement 2 provides more details about the applicant's financial situation, including the amount of assets and specific income figures.
• Uncertainty: Statement 2 specifically addresses the question of whether to submit bank statements or tax transcripts.

In Summary:

Both statements describe situations where the consular officer appears to have overlooked the applicant's financial resources. However, Statement 2 provides more specific information about the applicant's income, assets, and the timeline of events.

 

Edited January 24 by Larry and Marides
Cleaned up post to make it more presentable

[Boiler 46,757]

It is Akko about satisfying the I 864

[Larry and Marides 22]

24 minutes ago, Boiler said:

It is Akko about satisfying the I 864

How would one satisfy the I 864?

[Larry and Marides 22]

Quote

 

As the petitioner, my spouse’s visa was approved after responding to a 221(g) request for a joint sponsor. However, a joint sponsor was not provided because we qualified based on assets, as originally submitted. All supporting documents—including bank statements, brokerage account details, and the house deed (with no mortgage)—were uploaded alongside the I-864 Affidavit of Support.

In our response to the 221(g), we included a cover letter with a clear and concise explanation of the total asset value. It is important to note that consular officers are not accountants; they do not typically analyze bank or brokerage statements in detail. Instead, they primarily focus on income as reported on tax returns, as it provides a straightforward way to assess financial eligibility.

During the visa interview, the Filipino consular officer at Window 60 refused to discuss assets. He was dismissive and told my spouse to leave, stating that he was too busy to review the asset documentation.

 

ADVICE FOR PETITIONERS QUALIFYING ON ASSETS:

If you are using assets instead of income to meet the financial requirements, clearly explain your assets in simple terms. Use Part 11 (Additional Information) on the I-864 to provide a direct breakdown of your asset values. Additionally, cite the relevant sections of the guidelines that explain how assets can be used to qualify. This ensures clarity and reduces the chances of a misunderstanding or dismissal by the reviewing officer. Interview: Jan 22, 2025 Qualifying on assets. Refused 221g Joint Sponsor.

Jan 22, 2025 Submitted 221g documents at VAC with a simplified explanation of assets and citing the relevant sections of the guidelines that explain how assets can be used to qualify.

March 25th, 2025 Visa Issued.

[Larry and Marides 22]

As the petitioner, my spouse’s visa was approved after responding to a 221(g) request for a joint sponsor. However, a joint sponsor was not provided because we qualified based on assets, as originally submitted. All supporting documents—including bank statements, brokerage account details, and the house deed (with no mortgage)—were uploaded alongside the I-864 Affidavit of Support.

In our response to the 221(g), we included a cover letter with a clear and concise explanation of the total asset value. It is important to note that consular officers are not accountants; they do not typically analyze bank or brokerage statements in detail. Instead, they primarily focus on income as reported on tax returns, as it provides a straightforward way to assess financial eligibility.

During the visa interview, the Filipino consular officer at Window 60 refused to discuss assets. He was dismissive and told my spouse to leave, stating that he was too busy to review the asset documentation.

 

ADVICE FOR PETITIONERS QUALIFYING ON ASSETS:

If you are using assets instead of income to meet the financial requirements, clearly explain your assets in simple terms. Use Part 11 (Additional Information) on the I-864 to provide a direct breakdown of your asset values. Additionally, cite the relevant sections of the guidelines that explain how assets can be used to qualify. This ensures clarity and reduces the chances of a misunderstanding or dismissal by the reviewing officer. Interview: Jan 22, 2025 Qualifying on assets. Refused 221g Joint Sponsor.

Jan 22, 2025 Submitted 221g documents at VAC with a simplified explanation of assets and citing the relevant sections of the guidelines that explain how assets can be used to qualify.

March 25th, 2025 Visa Issued.

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/21/2025 at 7:33 PM, Boiler said:

Well it seems you do need a joint sponsor

I didn't need a joint sponsor. Do some research before you assume. If you read my statement I am substantially qualified with assets. Also we got approved eventually with assets only after resubmitting the 221g with a detailed explanation of assets.

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/21/2025 at 9:56 PM, Boiler said:

How do you intend to respond to the 221g?

 

they have the keys to the kingdom.

How? By submitting with the 221g a detailed simple explanation of my assets and citation of the section that mentions qualifying with assets. Visa approved with assets only.

On 1/21/2025 at 9:59 PM, Emat said:

In your i864, are the last three years incomes in your tax transcripts above 125% of poverty guideline for each of the three years?

No

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/21/2025 at 10:12 PM, WoodlandsFamily said:

Pardon me for asking, but perhaps they worry that you will have to support yourself and her on your retirement pension? Is there an age gap? Will she be working or retired too? Just thinking perhaps there was more to the reason for the 221g especially as you say they didn't look at the financial paperwork at all. Not meaning to offend just wondering.

They aren't worried. They just want to take the easy route and just look at tax income only. They don't want to decipher a hundred pages of bank statements.

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/21/2025 at 10:14 PM, Family said:

Contact your congressman and ask for help. The Consulate must accept assets as you have described. 
 

Under no circumstances withdraw from retirement to simulate income, it won’t help . 
Stick to your guns, you will win this…and take over communication/follow up from you wife..YOU email /call consulate 

Thank you for your encouragement. I stuck to my guns and won. 221g was overcome with assets only. Visa approved.

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/21/2025 at 10:16 PM, carmel34 said:

The I-864 and financial documents attached are used by the CO to make a judgment based on the unique circumstances of the case.  There is no requirement or policy that they absolutely have to accept assets in lieu of regular income, they are merely guidelines.  The final decision rests with the CO.  The path forward most likely to succeed is to get a qualified joint sponsor.

Why is everyone so negative about assets. It can be overcome. The path forward is not to play their joint sponsor games. They don't want to go over 100 pages of assets. Resubmitted 221g with a simplified explanation of my assets. Visa approved with assets only.

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/22/2025 at 3:14 AM, SteveInBostonI130 said:

 

Those are not qualification absolutes. The consular officer has the discretion to determine if you qualify or not.  Also, as this is the Philippines, they have experience with situations like yours (retired petitioner) and have their own guidelines.

 

In the end, it is your case and up to you on how to handle it.  You can contact your congressman, get an attorney, make significant financial decisions, etc.  Or follow the directions on the 221g, which is typically to get a joint sponsor.  One of these paths is faster and cheaper. 

No, I'm not playing their games. I didn't need a joint sponsor. They don't want to deal with 100 pages of financial paperwork. So they take the easy way. 221g. Well the 221g was overcome with a simplified 1 page explanation of my assets and a citation of the policy. Visa was approved on assets only.

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/22/2025 at 6:42 AM, mitzab said:

I hope you’re able to overcome this situation soon and reunite with your loved one.

As many have already mentioned, immigration processes are rarely straightforward. There is often a lot of discretion involved, especially up to the point when the decision is made at the airport.

May I suggest that, instead of focusing on the reasons behind the discretion used against your case, you proactively address the 221(g) by finding someone in the workforce to act as a joint sponsor? It seems like you have everything else in order. While I understand that asking someone for this kind of favor can be challenging, it might offer a quicker resolution to this difficult situation.

Secondly, if you firmly believe that the consular officer was in the wrong (and it’s possible that he was), you could consider pursuing the legal route and consulting with an immigration lawyer as soon as possible.

Sending you my best wishes and hoping you can resolve this matter sooner rather than later.

 

No I won't ask for a joint sponsor and didn't need one. I didn't play their joint sponsor games. I resubmitted my 221g with a simplified explanation of my assets and also a citation of the assets policy. Boom! Visa approved.

[Larry and Marides 22]

On 1/24/2025 at 12:34 AM, Lemonslice said:

You submitted all those statements with your affidavit of support, or your spouse brought them only at the interview?  If only at the interview, then I understand better the reason behind the 221g.  Best of luck.

All documents were submitted to CEAC well in advance.

[mitzab 311]

On 3/26/2025 at 3:47 AM, Larry and Marides said:

No I won't ask for a joint sponsor and didn't need one. I didn't play their joint sponsor games. I resubmitted my 221g with a simplified explanation of my assets and also a citation of the assets policy. Boom! Visa approved.

congratulations to you and hopefully you will reunite with your loved one very soon.