Anyone Ever Heard of CR-1 Denial Based on No Job Even Though Joint Sponsor is Plenty Good

[mojorisin 5]

Concerned if during the consular interview the consular decides that even with joint sponsor that covers proof of support, if I have no job he/she denies the CR-1 visa.

Does the joint sponsor eliminate the negative fact the USC spouse has no job?

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

No, a joint sponsor doesn't entirely eliminate it.

[NikLR 13,220]

Yes I have seen on the forum where a visa was given a 221g because even though the joint sponsor technically made enough to cover the beneficiary, they didn't' make enough to cover the beneficiary and petitioner who was jobless. Doesn't mean it's right but that's how the story went.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

I know of one where the petitioner had a life long history of being a welfare recipient and they denied the spouse as likely to become a public charge. They basically told her that her pattern of accepting public benefits showed that the immigrant ( who was not highly educated ) would likely end up following her example.

[mojorisin 5]

Thanks for the replies!! Curious how the USCIS knew the petitioner was a life long welfare recipient.

[Boggy1974 124]

Thanks for the replies!! Curious how the USCIS knew the petitioner was a life long welfare recipient.

I'm sure you know not to put much stock into hearsay.

Even though the scenario you describe is likely, I have not read or seen it happen.

I think it is a good idea the petitioner get a job now!

[NikLR 13,220]

They do background checks on the petitioner as well, not just the beneficiary fyi.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

The person was someone that filed years ago. Remember the petitioner has to file an I864 and either present their tax data or explain why they don't have to file taxes.

[shikimo 8]

Yasss...it would be pretty easy to find out that whether a given petitioner had or had not taken substantial public assistance, especially in the three years leading up the application (via the required tax info on the I-864).

I've never heard of it happening, but it seems very likely to me that immigration officials would have broad authority to judge the likelihood of financial insolvency on a case-by-case basis and not decide everything based on the hard numbers that allegedly indicate the difference between someone who is and is not likely to become a public charge. Cold-blooded, perhaps, but it does make sense.

As someone who's lived in France for eight years, what strikes me is the fact that taking public assistance is so readily seen as a bad thing: here, nearly everyone (my upper-middle-class self included) receives some form of public aid at some point. We still get a few euros every month just because we have a kid under three!

[pushbrk 12,114]

Concerned if during the consular interview the consular decides that even with joint sponsor that covers proof of support, if I have no job he/she denies the CR-1 visa.

Does the joint sponsor eliminate the negative fact the USC spouse has no job?

Having a qualified joint sponsor is not the same as crossing some goal line of assurance. It's still a judgment call on the public charge issue. The Consular officer must consider the totality of circumstances in making this call. They'll consider, among other things, the income history of the petitioner, the employability of the immigrant and the chances the joint sponsor will actually be willing to support the immigrant.

[NikLR 13,220]

As someone who's lived in France for eight years, what strikes me is the fact that taking public assistance is so readily seen as a bad thing: here, nearly everyone (my upper-middle-class self included) receives some form of public aid at some point. We still get a few euros every month just because we have a kid under three!

I think it's completely due to the American attitude to be honest. But Americans are nothing but strong believers in self and their ability to rise above without any help from anyone else. It's a rather resilient attitude that makes America what it is, but that of course has it's detriments as well.

[Ryan H 3,790]

Five off-topic posts removed; if you want to discuss song lyrics, the Off Topic forum is the place to do that.

[Kolewenoik31 57]

I know of one where the petitioner had a life long history of being a welfare recipient and they denied the spouse as likely to become a public charge. They basically told her that her pattern of accepting public benefits showed that the immigrant ( who was not highly educated ) would likely end up following her example.

Does anyone have any updates on this "so called case?" Was this a scare tactic or a real case? Currently life long welfare is 5 yrs. But even with the old welfare system no one could really be considered as having a "life long" because eventually those children grow up {just saying}, and life long would mean until death no need for a visa then! Anyone have any information, I have seen this on VJ files but does any one know this person and what was the outcome?

Edited March 13, 2014 by John and Tracy

[pushbrk 12,114]

I don't, and have no idea if anybody else knows them, but the outcome of this case is really meaningless to any other case, as each has its own unique combination of circumstances. Major things to consider include but are not limited to (not even close) reason the sponsor is willing to actually support the immigrant, not just sign an affidavit and be qualified, age and prospects the sponsor will actually be alive to fulfill the responsibility and the prospects the immigrant and spouse can and will support themselves. The Consular Officer is making a judgment call as to how likely it is the immigrant will actually become a public charge. The lack of a qualified sponsor assures no visa, but a qualified sponsor does NOT assure anything.

[Kolewenoik31 57]

I don't, and have no idea if anybody else knows them, but the outcome of this case is really meaningless to any other case, as each has its own unique combination of circumstances. Major things to consider include but are not limited to (not even close) reason the sponsor is willing to actually support the immigrant, not just sign an affidavit and be qualified, age and prospects the sponsor will actually be alive to fulfill the responsibility and the prospects the immigrant and spouse can and will support themselves. The Consular Officer is making a judgment call as to how likely it is the immigrant will actually become a public charge. The lack of a qualified sponsor assures no visa, but a qualified sponsor does NOT assure anything.

What...??? Your words don't make sense "but a qualified sponsor does NOT assure anything." Are you okay? Its hard to see who's side you are really on. Just because a person is a welfare recipient does not mean that if they marry someone that person will be the same way. People are all individuals and free to make their own choices....simple! There are many success stories of people being given a raw deal in life and having to get assistance. But they received it long enough to get on their feet and then they got off and have never been back on again. For anyone to say that it will create a public charge or someone being on the system for ever is bad stereotype. There are many good people in this world that have had just a difficult time sometime in their life. Sorry and please forgive me if you were making a different point. Just my thoughts!