1-864 scares the hell out of me

[KenLoveChance 0]

the I-864 is a scary legal document. If I do not sign it, will the visa be denied?

no offense meant, you should not married a foreign if signing an I-864 scared you. we all knew once you marry a foreign,from the moment we filed a visa for them our responsibilities starts.

[pddp 240]

Regardless of nationality, immigration status and what not, isn't marriage a commitment to be there for each other and take care of each other in every way you can? Or what did you guys agree to in your marriage vows..? Could it be that divorce is so prevalent these days because people don't fully commit to each other to begin with but basically already have one foot out the door from day one...? Hmmm... :/

[Kelly C 16]

A lot of you seem to think that he should just do it and not even think about it.

Ironically, the forums are also full of people discovering they're still legally bound to their ex-spouse after divorce and come here to say "what was I thinking!"

I don't think taking a moment to assess the situation can hurt.

I am the foreign spouse, so I didn't have to do that, but I would've totally understood if my husband took a little while to think about it. And of course I would also understand if his mom had declined being a joint sponsor. It's not "just a signature".

Of course thinking about it before starting the whole immigration process would be a lot better. But some of us were not really aware of what was coming in the next steps.

Very well said. Some forms and docs. can be difficult to understand specific line-items, especially when "and-or" phrase are made

[wee carrington 33]

If this document is so troubling to you then maybe you have good reason not to sign it.

[skiptex 225]

If this document is so troubling to you then maybe you have good reason not to sign it.

LOL> thats what i thought.. be he is already married.. (i assume, since this is in the IR/CR-1 forum

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, that's not what the form itself says...

From the form:

Provide the intending immigrant any support necessary to maintain him or her at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his or her household size (100 percent if you are the petitioning sponsor and are on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and the person is your husband, wife, unmarried child under 21 years old.)

Note that divorce does not terminate your obligations under this Form I-864.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-864.pdf

Edited January 24, 2012 by ☼

[mike411 15]

I guess a 10 year commitment is scary! The implied enforcement has to be total BS. A few welfare payments will hit the 25% easily. I can’t any government taking money from the sponsor to below poverty.

Edited January 24, 2012 by mike411

[alizon 77]

But the contract is between the USC and the state, which means that even if the beneficiary wants to sue to be kept above 125% of poverty, they would have to get the state to sue the USC on behalf of the beneficiary, don't you think? The STATE has the right to pursue compensation if the contract is broken...I doubt the beneficiary could do it independently. It makes sense that the gov would sue to get back any government support the beneficiary took, but it seems extremely unlikely that the state would spend the funds on a lawsuit just to do the beneficiary a favor.

Instances cited about the USC having to divide their assets with their spouse have to do with laws about marriage and co-owned property, not the I-864. Prenups are frequently overturned, and assets are split, even between USCs.

Edited January 24, 2012 by alizon

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But the contract is between the USC and the state, which means that even if the beneficiary wants to sue to be kept above 125% of poverty, they would have to get the state to sue the USC on behalf of the beneficiary, don't you think? The STATE has the right to pursue compensation if the contract is broken...I doubt the beneficiary could do it independently. It makes sense that the gov would sue to get back any government support the beneficiary took, but it seems extremely unlikely that the state would spend the funds on a lawsuit just to do the beneficiary a favor.

Instances cited about the USC having to divide their assets with their spouse have to do with laws about marriage and co-owned property, not the I-864. Prenups are frequently overturned, and assets are split, even between USCs.

The terms of the I-864 can be enforced in civil court, and apparently, also in family court:

http://www.familylawyerspittsburgh.com/i864-immigration-affidavit-spousal-support/

Edited January 24, 2012 by ☼

[alizon 77]

The terms of the I-864 can be enforced in civil court, and apparently, also in family court:

http://www.familylawyerspittsburgh.com/i864-immigration-affidavit-spousal-support/

Touché, I stand corrected...in 2 states out of 50, at least. But the I-864 does seem like largely a moot point if you're getting divorced. If the USC is the breadwinner in the family, they're going to be paying alimony and/or child support anyway. I guess I was imagining a scenario where there was no legitimate claim for alimony, whether the USC would be vulnerable to suit from the beneficiary in an informal separation or even if they were still married (what a fun relationship that would be...).

Anyway, not a lawyer here, just enjoying some speculation.

Edited January 24, 2012 by alizon

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Touché, I stand corrected...in 2 states out of 50, at least. But the I-864 does seem like largely a moot point if you're getting divorced. If the USC is the breadwinner in the family, they're going to be paying alimony and/or child support anyway. I guess I was imagining a scenario where there was no legitimate claim for alimony, whether the USC would be vulnerable to suit from the beneficiary in an informal separation or even if they were still married (what a fun relationship that would be...).

Anyway, not a lawyer here, just enjoying some speculation.

It can be onerous for the sponsor to meet his obligations, especially for a failed short marriage, where little, if any joint marital assets have accumulated. Usually, both parties would go their separate ways, with what each brought into the marriage. However, Congress decided since the immigrant would not have the means to support his/herself until they were established, that the sponsor, and not the US taxpayer would provide that support. Congress set that level of support at 125% of the poverty level, and made it possible for the contract to be enforceable in any civil court.

[alizon 77]

It can be onerous for the sponsor to meet his obligations, especially for a failed short marriage, where little, if any joint marital assets have accumulated. Usually, both parties would go their separate ways, with what each brought into the marriage. However, Congress decided since the immigrant would not have the means to support his/herself until they were established, that the sponsor, and not the US taxpayer would provide that support. Congress set that level of support at 125% of the poverty level, and made it possible for the contract to be enforceable in any civil court.

The 3rd paragraph of the article you site did say that there was some responsibility for the beneficiary to mitigate the amount that he/she is owed by the USC, and that the USC can file a claim in court to be released from financial obligation if the beneficiary did not attempt to mitigate their financial burden (i.e. didn't try to get a job though they are capable of working).

I wonder how the poverty level is calculated when a split happens: excluding the possibility of children, is the beneficiary entitled to 125% of the poverty level for a household of 1 or 1/2 of 125% of the poverty level for a household of 2? If you look at the increments by which the poverty level climbs, that makes a difference. Presumably, 125% of the poverty level for a household of 1 is about $14,000, but being entitled to 1/2 of a 2 person household only gives you about $9,150 a year. If the beneficiary has a part time job, they'd likely mitigate the vast majority of that obligation. It's hardly like the beneficiary is able to get away with a mint without any effort.

Edited January 24, 2012 by alizon

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The 3rd paragraph of the article you site did say that there was some responsibility for the beneficiary to mitigate the amount that he/she is owed by the USC, and that the USC can file a claim in court to be released from financial obligation if the beneficiary did not attempt to mitigate their financial burden (i.e. didn't try to get a job though they are capable of working).

I wonder how the poverty level is calculated when a split happens: excluding the possibility of children, is the beneficiary entitled to 125% of the poverty level for a household of 1 or 1/2 of 125% of the poverty level for a household of 2? If you look at the increments by which the poverty level climbs, that makes a difference. Presumably, 125% of the poverty level for a household of 1 is about $14,000, but being entitled to 1/2 of a 2 person household only gives you about $9,150 a year. If the beneficiary has a part time job, they'd likely mitigate the vast majority of that obligation. It's hardly like the beneficiary is able to get away with a mint without any effort.

Provide the intending immigrant any support necessary to maintain him or her at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his or her household size

So, if it is just the spouse, the level of maintenance would be for household size 1, not for half of household size 2. If they have 2 children, and the spouse ends up with the children, the level of maintenance would be for household size 3, not for half of household size 4.

The sponsor, according to cite, would have to file a separate affirmative action, if he/she feels the beneficiary could mitigate some of the maintenance costs based on earning capacity.

[alizon 77]

So, if it is just the spouse, the level of maintenance would be for household size 1, not for half of household size 2. If they have 2 children, and the spouse ends up with the children, the level of maintenance would be for household size 3, not for half of household size 4.

The sponsor, according to cite, would have to file a separate affirmative action, if he/she feels the beneficiary could mitigate some of the maintenance costs based on earning capacity.

Right, but in the first hypothetical case you suggested, you were talking about a short marriage with no co-accumulated assets...and I'd assume no children. And once there are children involved, you're going to be paying child support anyway, as I originally argued. It just seems to me like the I-864 obligation is a pittance compared to one's obligations when a marriage is dissolved.

We sign the form because the government doesn't want to be responsible for a single, measly cent, not because it would to cost a fortune to support this other person. Those poverty levels are laughable in a lot of the country, anyway.

Edited January 24, 2012 by alizon

[mike411 15]

Poverty guideline for household size of 2 is $14,710(100%) and $18,387(125%). Household of 1 is $10,890(100%) and $13,612(125%).

There is no way for a court will take $13,612 from the sponsor making $18,387 and leaving him with $4775. Will be much less after taxes!

Something that can never be enforced on the minimum required guidelines.