pushbrk
-
Posts
39,482 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
.thumb.jpg.bca21409c6d2583d23d463e1b0e8d8cc.jpg)
Immigration Timeline & Photos
pushbrk's Achievements
Recent Profile Visitors
75,135 profile views
-
Dashinka reacted to a post in a topic:
K 3 Visa Application - Form I-130 and Form 1-129F
-
Noted. You....WILL.... get a case note suggesting you might want to add a joint sponsor. Ignore that message. You don't need one. It's boilerplate even millionaires with insufficient taxable income get. -
Larry207 reacted to a post in a topic:
Why are people getting rejected on assets only?
-
So, explain things the way they are, when the time comes. You can also upload the SS statement that says what your benefit will be when you become eligible. It's all part of the picture. (Totality of Circumstances)
-
No. That's the way it worked until 2006. Now, they cancel the I-129F once they join the two. Only reason to file the second petition is to hope that when they join the two, they go ahead and approve the I-130 only. The K3 visa has been virtually unavailable for more than a decade.
-
Just to clarify, "lockbox" is kind of an insider term. You are filing with an intake facility. They have a PO box address, but they also have a physical address. Only USPS can deliver to a PO Box. It's called a "lockbox" because it has a number, but you don't walk up to it and open it like a regular little PO Box. Those aren't big enough for the amount of mail they get. If filing from Mexico on paper, use the physical address and DHL, UPS, or FedEX, etc.
-
My advice to the OP, is to update the I-864 before the interview. Maybe not necessary, but it's near the end of the year. Make a big enough withdrawal before the end of the year to show income over the threshold for 2024. Put a letter of explanation as part of your evidence. It can be in the same PDF as the most recent account statement. Explain your assets are more than sufficient to support your intended lifestyle in the USA. They can see a man over the age to make non-penalized withdrawals from an IRA, can live well on the amount shown on the statement. Consular Officers are not stupid. They know simple arithmetic.
-
Yes, the stipend amount goes under your current annual income. If you don't know whether you are considered employed or not, ask the organization paying the stipend. Typically, stipend income is not taxable, so not "wages". It's your personal income though.
-
Those who are confused about the difference have not become A-Students of the I-864 instructions, OR instead of interpreting literally, they interpret "hopefully" or "conveniently". This is where I see most problems beginning, whether it be assets or income. Also the confusion between business revenue, and "income". The OP has it covered quite well.
-
And in the OP's case, that should be no problem at all. I still think it's not accurate to say the IV unit in Manila doesn't like the profile of living off assets in the Philippines. They want to understand how how the couple or family is going to support themselves in the USA. An IRA with a balance that is still increasing more each year than projected living expenses, is easy to illustrate. Information posted on Facebook groups and discussed by folks who are blind leading blind, is not a reliable indicator of anything, really. Without actual details, it's just speculation. The OP has provided enough details to give me confidence they'll have no issue.
-
You see that under the affidavit of support. The context is that you add a household member and their income, in order to qualify as sponsor. Unless your son or daughter's income is needed and they are completing an I-864a, you have no reason to do that.
-
The reasons were more specific than just "using assets". Often, we can determine the reason but sometimes we never have enough information to know. Drawing the conclusion that assets won't work, is not justified, because the DO work, and I expect they WILL work for this petitioner. Note that the term "always" is absolute, and does not apply. I think you mean you "often" not "always".
-
Regarding Last Spousal visit
pushbrk replied to kemalali15@gmail.'s topic in IR-1 / CR-1 Spouse Visa Process & Procedures
Then they will see there were four visits total, two of which were after the marriage took place. I don't see a problem with them understanding the situation. People have lives to live. If you met once and married on the first visit, then never saw each other again, that paints a very different picture. If she can visit again before the interview, that is obviously better than not visiting. Otherwise, it is what it is. -
Unless you meet the three conditions mentioned at the top of the EZ version, you must use the I-864 instead. That's the difference.
-
CEAC is about what is needed from petitioners and visa applicants. If you have a child living with you in the USA, they are just counted in your household size on the Affidavit of Support. They are not "named" or otherwise mentioned.
-
drumsmia reacted to a post in a topic:
Domicile during the Montreal Interview Stage IR1
-
Gary Rich reacted to a post in a topic:
Why are people getting rejected on assets only?
-
Asia reacted to a post in a topic:
Why are people getting rejected on assets only?
-
Ontarkie reacted to a post in a topic:
Why are people getting rejected on assets only?
-
OldUser reacted to a post in a topic:
Why are people getting rejected on assets only?
-
You "always heard" wrong.
-
pushbrk reacted to a post in a topic:
Why are people getting rejected on assets only?
-
pushbrk reacted to a post in a topic:
Why are people getting rejected on assets only?
-
The answer to your actual question cannot be offered as a general answer. I assure you that each person who tries to use assets and fails, is an individual case with it's own unique reason. Only another case with the same circumstances would be denied for the same reason. Instead of focusing on possible failure, I suggest you focus on why you will succeed. If you are retired, have Social Security income, and have a large enough IRA to support yourself in the USA, then the person making the public charge decision can see that. It doesn't have to be this way, but if you can show your IRA is growing, even though you are making withdrawals to support yourself, that's another positive. But really, a Consular Officer is trained to understand whether the assets are enough to support you and the immigrant or not. That's what IRA's are for, to support retired people through their retirement years. It's no rocket science. If you know you IRA is sufficient, they'll be able to see that too. That said, the people I've seen having issues with assets only, are those whose asset totals are either marginally qualifying or/and they are trying to use assets not considered "liquid". An IRA for a retired person, is definitely liquid. The question is whether it's enough. You already know if it is or isn't.