What does the Affidavit of Support require?

[tito 1]

Isn't the 5 year period limited to housing assistance? Whereas there is no time restriction for programs such as SSI, FoodStamps... In fact, it's been said that, since funding for federal housing assistance is NOT mandatory, but discretionary, a question arises as if those benefits qualify as 'means tested'. Certainly, TANF would be available without any waiting period...

The ambiguity seems to come from the way in which the legislation and rules were promulgated. But that doesn't affect my point, unless you say that the 5 year period is for ALL assistance, which I do not believe to be the case. If so, then I'll look into it, but again, I don't think that's the case.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Isn't the 5 year period limited to housing assistance? Whereas there is no time restriction for programs such as SSI, FoodStamps... In fact, it's been said that, since funding for federal housing assistance is NOT mandatory, but discretionary, a question arises as if those benefits qualify as 'means tested'. Certainly, TANF would be available without any waiting period...

The ambiguity seems to come from the way in which the legislation and rules were promulgated. But that doesn't affect my point, unless you say that the 5 year period is for ALL assistance, which I do not believe to be the case. If so, then I'll look into it, but again, I don't think that's the case.

Hmmm. Well, unless there's been a change in the interim, as far as I am aware...

Qualified aliens include Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs), refugees and asylees, persons paroled into the country for at least one year, persons granted withholding of deportation, Cuban-Haitian entrants, Asian Americans, and certain battered women and children. Any alien not included in one of these categories is considered "not qualified."

"Qualified" immigrants entering the U.S. on or after 8/22/96 are:

Barred from Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Subject to a 5-year bar on non-emergency Medicaid, the state Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP), food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

There is no bar to food stamps for qualified immigrant children or disabled qualified immigrants who also receive a disability benefit.

After the 5-year bar, aliens are further subject to deeming for the above-listed programs.

After the 5-year bar, each state determines whether or not an individual is eligible for TANF, Medicaid, and social services block grants (Title XX).

Section 403 (a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (PL 104-193) sets a five year residency requirement for qualified aliens who enter the United States on or after August 22, 1996 and who make application for Federal means- tested programs. Section 403©(2) of PRWORA lists those programs that are exempted from section 403(a) to include titles IV-B and IV-E, under certain circumstances; however, title XIX is not on the list of programs exempted from section 403(a) of PRWORA. Title IV-E eligible children are categorically eligible for Medicaid. Must qualified alien children who are eligible for title IV-E meet the five year residency requirement to be eligible for title XIX

[mawilson 2,133]

Silly question, but.....

Isn't this whole Affidavit business a load of bollocks anyway?

The Affidavit makes you (in theory) responsible for repaying the cost of any "means-tested

public benefits", but no-one (except USCIS) knows the Affidavit even exists, and the USCIS

keep it securely locked in a vault (or a dusty file cabinet.)

So even if an immigrant goes and claims all of sorts of benefits, who would know that there's

an Affidavit of Support out there somewhere and who's going to enforce it? It's not like

the IRS, SSA and USCIS all use the same computer system.

Subpeona, anyone?

You need to know what to subpoena, or indeed that the person claiming benefits is

a legal immigrant, and that he has a sponsor.

[tito 1]

Well, now I'm even more thoroughly confused than ever. No wonder the Stump court screwed the pooch so badly! I'm still going with the 'reimbursement for expenses associated with means-tested public benefits' as the parameter for the liability of the sponsor. I'd argue that through any appeal process, based, and this going back to my initial thought, on the proposition that the legislative intent was such that the breadth of the sponsor's pledge is to ensure that the immigrant doesn't end up as a public charge when it comes to certain benefits, and the declaration does not create a vested right to get money from the sponsor whatever the reason (the superfluous language notwithstanding).

Anything more than that, and I gotta go read the Federal Register again, and I really don't want to do that!!!! Maybe we can put mox on the task of having a memo analyzing the Federal Register...

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Well, now I'm even more thoroughly confused than ever. No wonder the Stump court screwed the pooch so badly! I'm still going with the 'reimbursement for expenses associated with means-tested public benefits' as the parameter for the liability of the sponsor. I'd argue that through any appeal process, based, and this going back to my initial thought, on the proposition that the legislative intent was such that the breadth of the sponsor's pledge is to ensure that the immigrant doesn't end up as a public charge when it comes to certain benefits, and the declaration does not create a vested right to get money from the sponsor whatever the reason (the superfluous language notwithstanding).

Anything more than that, and I gotta go read the Federal Register again, and I really don't want to do that!!!! Maybe we can put mox on the task of having a memo analyzing the Federal Register...

Has anyone given though to the possibility of the following scenario.....in a nutshell?

The Affidavit of Support was changed from the non-binding I-134 to a legally enforceable I-864 for family-based permanent resident/ adjustment of status applications for a reason, or reasons?. We're all likely to think, initially, that the binding nature of the Affidavit is to make certain that any agency that were to offer an ineligible alien means-tested benefits, would not have to cough up the funds to do so, and would have an individual (the sponsor) to go after to underwrite those costs. But in point of fact, even though the right is preserved in the INA for an agency to do that, it is very rarely done.

Is it rare that the agency seeks reimbursement, even though the right is so preserved in the Affidavit? or is it that reimbursement is so rarely sought, because benefits aren't that easy to secure, for the ineligible alien?

Bear in mind that the sponsor is also bound by the I-864. Bound to the obligation he or she has made with the USCIS that the alien will not become a public charge. Bound, that is, to provide at minimum 125% of the poverty guideline figure.

Well, if a "qualified" alien cannot secure means-tested benefits for a period of 5 years, what is a government agency going to give the alien? He or she isn't eligible. And to make matters even more profound, after 5 years, the alien's income considered by an agency when benefits are applied for is that of his or her sponsor. So if the sponsor makes above the threshhold for assistance, the alien gets nowt! So there's less need for an agency to seek out reimbursement from a sponsor for benefits paid to an alien, because, guess what...save for a few rare instances, chances are the benefits are only rarely awarded.

However, if one thinks through that situation, what happens to an alien that needs that assistance?

Well, if he or she were in a viable marriage but the income is too low to self-sustain, then they seek benefits...and the government, by virtue of the extant Affidavit of Support, has the opportunity within the ensuing 10 years of getting that money back from the sponsor. All poverty aside, that is, But I believe that the language on the Affidavit of Support that refers to the sponsor being responsible for providing support goes beyond the means-tested issue to cover the occasion, or the case of an alien (in the cases of divorce) where the sponsor's income is deemed to the alien, yet the alien is not a member of the sponsor's household and so, in order to be able to keep the wolf from the door, the Affidavit leaves a door open for the alien to have the sponsor to lean on, when all else fails.

[rebeccajo 14]

Silly question, but.....

Isn't this whole Affidavit business a load of bollocks anyway?

The Affidavit makes you (in theory) responsible for repaying the cost of any "means-tested

public benefits", but no-one (except USCIS) knows the Affidavit even exists, and the USCIS

keep it securely locked in a vault (or a dusty file cabinet.)

So even if an immigrant goes and claims all of sorts of benefits, who would know that there's

an Affidavit of Support out there somewhere and who's going to enforce it? It's not like

the IRS, SSA and USCIS all use the same computer system.

Subpeona, anyone?

You need to know what to subpoena, or indeed that the person claiming benefits is

a legal immigrant, and that he has a sponsor.

That would all be revealed during the discovery phase, if litigation were indeed filed.

If the agency themself is unaware, that may explain why the affidavit is rarely enforced. The agencies don't realize they have a means to recover.

[tito 1]

That's a scary scenario...but when I talk to colleagues about the effect of the declaration of support, they are universally of the view that it doesn't mean squat unless the alien is destitute and on the street. And this ought to be a bee in someone's bonnet, but that's where the lawyers in the network of Russian brides are so effective...it's all set up in advance...the shelter, the social worker, everything. THEN Olga, who created an appearance not only of abuse, but also of destitution, goes and gets the court order, and here we are with poor Mr. Stump holding his bag after wife hit the street and landed safely somewhere else.

It could go any which way, and it would be up to how the case would be argued, and how the judge reads it.

[rebeccajo 14]

However, if one thinks through that situation, what happens to an alien that needs that assistance?

Well, if he or she were in a viable marriage but the income is too low to self-sustain, then they seek benefits...and the government, by virtue of the extant Affidavit of Support, has the opportunity within the ensuing 10 years of getting that money back from the sponsor. All poverty aside, that is, But I believe that the language on the Affidavit of Support that refers to the sponsor being responsible for providing support goes beyond the means-tested issue to cover the occasion, or the case of an alien (in the cases of divorce) where the sponsor's income is deemed to the alien, yet the alien is not a member of the sponsor's household and so, in order to be able to keep the wolf from the door, the Affidavit leaves a door open for the alien to have the sponsor to lean on, when all else fails.

Thus the plain language 'warnings' on the affidavit as to what the sponsor may be letting themselves in for.

Clever, those lawyers.

[rebeccajo 14]

That's a scary scenario...but when I talk to colleagues about the effect of the declaration of support, they are universally of the view that it doesn't mean squat unless the alien is destitute and on the street. And this ought to be a bee in someone's bonnet, but that's where the lawyers in the network of Russian brides are so effective...it's all set up in advance...the shelter, the social worker, everything. THEN Olga, who created an appearance not only of abuse, but also of destitution, goes and gets the court order, and here we are with poor Mr. Stump holding his bag after wife hit the street and landed safely somewhere else.

It could go any which way, and it would be up to how the case would be argued, and how the judge reads it.

I tend to think that any pre-arranged network in place for "Olga" is set up as a safety net in case she finds herself in an intolerable situation. The groups I have heard of have a far less sinister side to them than the one you paint.

[mawilson 2,133]

If the agency themself is unaware, that may explain why the affidavit is rarely enforced. The agencies don't realize they have a means to recover.

My point exactly. Affidavits are for people, not for agencies. Most agencies wouldn't know their #######

from their elbow, much less how to subpoena an Affidavit.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Why wouldn't the agency know there is an Affidavit? If an alien approaches an agency for assistance there is an application process to determine eligibility. The fact that the person is an alien and the fact that the alien is sponsored is unearthed during that process.

If the alien doesn't declare who the sponsor is, you can very well bet that the agency and USCIS do communicate. In fact, the final rule states that, if the sponsored immigrant applies for public benefits, USCIS may disclose the sponsor’s social security number and last-known address to a benefit-granting agency.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why wouldn't the agency know there is an Affidavit? If an alien approaches an agency for assistance there is an application process to determine eligibility. The fact that the person is an alien and the fact that the alien is sponsored is unearthed during that process.

If the alien doesn't declare who the sponsor is, you can very well bet that the agency and USCIS do communicate. In fact, the final rule states that, if the sponsored immigrant applies for public benefits, USCIS may disclose the sponsor’s social security number and last-known address to a benefit-granting agency.

In theory. In reality, anyone can apply for benefits - there's no "registry of citizens" and no easy

way to determine that a person with SSN 123-45-6789 is an alien and not a U.S. citizen.

[rebeccajo 14]

Why wouldn't the agency know there is an Affidavit? If an alien approaches an agency for assistance there is an application process to determine eligibility. The fact that the person is an alien and the fact that the alien is sponsored is unearthed during that process.

If the alien doesn't declare who the sponsor is, you can very well bet that the agency and USCIS do communicate. In fact, the final rule states that, if the sponsored immigrant applies for public benefits, USCIS may disclose the sponsor’s social security number and last-known address to a benefit-granting agency.

In theory. In reality, anyone can apply for benefits - there's no "registry of citizens" and no easy

way to determine that a person with SSN 123-45-6789 is an alien and not a U.S. citizen.

I wanted to say to you what Mermaid has here (which she does more eloquently than I ever could - but I digress), however I don't have particular agency experience or any links to back up the argument. So I didn't write down my thoughts. I will now though.

In some of my 'googling' about the affidavit, I've come across numerous 'hits' which were directives from Human Services Department manuals for several different states. Because the links weren't what I was particularly researching at the time, I didn't bookmark them. However, those links were specific instructions to caseworkers on how to process applications for an immigrant.

[zqt3344 21]

Good one! AHHA

Section 213A(a)(1)(B) of the Act

expressly says the sponsored immigrant

must be able to seek to enforce the

affidavit of support. Congress clearly

intended to permit the sponsored

immigrant to sue to enforce the support

obligation, if necessary.

Here's where the court got TOO active...the issue is WHAT support obligation? The answer is...MEANS-TESTED BENEFITS! The court in Stump read too much into it, and it is subject to such an interpretation (given that you also interpret the language that way). But...that is an overly expansive way of interpreting the regulation. Stump can and will be challenged. The sponsor is on the hook to support the immigrant...but that's not the end...FOR MEANS-TESTED BENEFITS, which is the overall and general subject of the affidavit of support. See how that works? That is appropriate legislative analysis...not to EXPAND the statute, but to limit its meaning. There is where the court erred.

That's my analysis, anyway, and I am confident in its application.

"Isn't this whole Affidavit business a load of bollocks anyway?"

You could say that, but it is a big cloud hovering over the citizen. The agency providing "means-tested" public benefits (that involve mandatory, not discretionary, funding) takes down the immigrant's information, visa number, passport, and other information like that, and if there's a way to grab onto someone to reimburse the government, it'll come back and bite the citizen more times than not. Plus, as in the Stump case, the immigrant paraded it around as a basis for an award.

ASIDE FOR MOX: If you read the Stump case...I'll give you THREE guesses as to where the wife was from...and the first 2 don't count. Her name was OLGA.

[zqt3344 21]

Oh really, that is interesting, what groups would that be? Kind of eye opening that they exist for the sole purpose of these immigrants, which does give Tito some credence in what he/she has been trying to express, then again it is only an opinion kind of like my A _ _ which we all have one like Mox says!

That's a scary scenario...but when I talk to colleagues about the effect of the declaration of support, they are universally of the view that it doesn't mean squat unless the alien is destitute and on the street. And this ought to be a bee in someone's bonnet, but that's where the lawyers in the network of Russian brides are so effective...it's all set up in advance...the shelter, the social worker, everything. THEN Olga, who created an appearance not only of abuse, but also of destitution, goes and gets the court order, and here we are with poor Mr. Stump holding his bag after wife hit the street and landed safely somewhere else.

It could go any which way, and it would be up to how the case would be argued, and how the judge reads it.

I tend to think that any pre-arranged network in place for "Olga" is set up as a safety net in case she finds herself in an intolerable situation. The groups I have heard of have a far less sinister side to them than the one you paint.