I-864, AOS: Show Petitioner's income, assets or Joint Sponsor income?

[AliciaPolo 0]

Good afternoon good people of VJ,

I'd be very appreciative to have you thoughts on the appropriate level of evidence to include with a I-864. As evidence that my husband (the Petitioner) can support me (the Visa Applicant) with income sufficiently exceeding the Federal Poverty Guidelines, we are deciding which of the following paths to take.

PATH 1: A) The Petitioner's income (only)

PATH 2: A) The Petitioner's income + B) the Visa Applicant's assets

PATH 3: A) The Petitioner's income + B) the Visa Applicant's assets + C) a Joint Sponsor's income

PATH 4: A) The Petitioner's income + C) a Joint Sponsor's income

Either A) or C) comfortably exceed the Federal Poverty Guidelines, on their own. B) Exceeds 5 times the Federal Poverty Guidelines.

In principle, Path 1 should be sufficient. However, note the following:

FACT 1: We live together outside of the US. We are taking the relevant steps to demonstrate the intent of the Petitioner to reestablish his domicile in the US.

FACT 2: The USC Petitioner's income has been foreign for the past 6 years and is currently still foreign. He will continue to work outside of the US until I receive my visa, at which point his company is transferring him to work at one of the company's US offices. Our interpretation is that the Petitioner's current income (which is now foreign) will continue once he moves to the US, since he will be with the same company.

FACT 3: The Petitioner has an employment letter stating both his current income (foreign income, in the foreign currency and US$ equivalent), his pending company transfer to the US, and his future annual income in the US after the transfer. Both the current and future income amounts exceed the Federal Poverty Guidelines.

FACT 4: On the Petitioner's 1040 tax forms for the past 3 years, foreign income is subtracted from wages in order to calculate "Total Income", leaving Total Income near $0. This means any entries in Form I-864 (edition date 07/02/15, which has changed from some older versions) , Part 6.19.a.b.c will be near $0.

*

QUESTION 1: Will FACT 4 weaken the evidence of PATH 1 (the Petitioner's income)?

QUESTION 2: Would PATHS 2 or 3 help mitigate the risk that visa adjudicators don't like seeing the $0 amounts in Form I-864, Part 6.19, and as a result deem the Petitioner's income as insufficient (despite the employment letter)? Or, could supplying the additional asset evidence and/or a joint sponsor complicate matters and cause problems (even assuming no mistakes are made) since PATH 1 should (should) be sufficient? In other words, is there any harm in supplying additional, multiple levels of AOS evidence?

QUESTION 3: I've read that assets are a weaker form of evidence. Has anyone found this to be the case? If so, it may be an argument for pursuing PATH 4 over PATH 3.

If anyone has had a similar experience, or has an informed opinion, we will be very thankful for your input.

Many thanks,

Alicia

[newacct 688]

A "joint sponsor" is a completely separate household from the primary sponsor, and different sponsors cannot combine incomes, so 3 and 4 are impossible. Each sponsor may only count the incomes of people in his own household (including the intending immigrant). So you need either A+B to be sufficient, or B+C to be sufficient. You said A is sufficient; that should be good enough. If you are not sure, then A+B should be enough, and you don't need a joint sponsor.

What matters is the current income, not the "total income" from past years. The fact it's 0 shouldn't, in principle, matter.

[Ryan H 3,790]

Moved from Progress Reports to Process & Procedures.

[AliciaPolo 0]

A "joint sponsor" is a completely separate household from the primary sponsor, and different sponsors cannot combine incomes, so 3 and 4 are impossible. Each sponsor may only count the incomes of people in his own household (including the intending immigrant). So you need either A+B to be sufficient, or B+C to be sufficient. You said A is sufficient; that should be good enough. If you are not sure, then A+B should be enough, and you don't need a joint sponsor.

What matters is the current income, not the "total income" from past years. The fact it's 0 shouldn't, in principle, matter.

Many thanks for this input, newacct. I take your point that Paths 3 and 4 are impossible. I suppose what I intended (which I did not make clear in my post), was that I could provide each of A, B, C (without summing incomes from A and C, but rather as two, individual I-864s), and if one didn't pass inspection, the others could make up for that.

I'm glad you think the "total income" from past years does not matter in principle. I like to think this too. But then I think - if it doesn't matter, why are they asking?

[NikLR 13,220]

They're asking because they want to know you filed your taxes as required, and also some embassies actually do make an issue of past income, not just current income.

[newacct 688]

I'm glad you think the "total income" from past years does not matter in principle. I like to think this too. But then I think - if it doesn't matter, why are they asking?

Maybe for "consistency" of income? But in your case you shouldn't have anything to worry about, because you actually had plenty of income. It was just excluded for tax purposes.

[mallafri76 1,012]

I don't know about foreign income but I do have experience of assets. I just had my interview at the US embassy and they seem to have accepted our assets, which are all currently in my name (intending immigrant) and in my country. If you want to use assets, you need three times the federal poverty guidelines.

Whether assets are accepted or not and whether or not past income is important really depends on the embassy you'll interview at. It's one of those things you won't know for certain until you have your interview.