Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MatthewK

sponsor?!

3 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

hello all!

Just wondering if anyone can give me a little advice on something... My fiance (the USC) has been unemployed for 90% of 2012 because she has been flying out to Australia on and off to see me throughout this process as I can't get that much time off work. Because she hasn't been working we have her mother co-sponsoring us, she makes well above the poverty requirements so hopefully there is no problems there. The only thing I'm concerned about at the moment is that my fiance claimed EDD benefits for a couple of months when she was at home in the US. Is that going to be a huge red flag when they see her 2012 taxes when we have our interview in 2013 sometime?

Thanks

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all!

Just wondering if anyone can give me a little advice on something... My fiance (the USC) has been unemployed for 90% of 2012 because she has been flying out to Australia on and off to see me throughout this process as I can't get that much time off work. Because she hasn't been working we have her mother co-sponsoring us, she makes well above the poverty requirements so hopefully there is no problems there. The only thing I'm concerned about at the moment is that my fiance claimed EDD benefits for a couple of months when she was at home in the US. Is that going to be a huge red flag when they see her 2012 taxes when we have our interview in 2013 sometime?

Thanks

Matt

By "EDD" I presume you're referring to "Employment Development Department", which usually handles unemployment compensation claims in most states.

She using a joint sponsor so her income should be largely irrelevant. However, since the K1 is not an immigrant visa they have a lot of discretion in making the public charge determination. Even with a joint sponsor, they could conclude that there's a strong chance that the beneficiary will become a public charge in the US. The likelihood of them doing this in Australia is remote. It would take some fairly blatant circumstances, like a petitioner who is disabled and collecting SSI at well under the poverty guidelines, and a beneficiary who is also disabled and will probably never be gainfully employed. Even with a joint sponsor, they could conclude that the beneficiary in that case would almost certainly end up being a public charge.

Collecting unemployment benefits doesn't generally reflect badly on the petitioner's future earning capability. Unemployment benefits are not a means tested public benefit. They are paid primarily from an insurance fund that the employer pays into while the employee is working. The situation has been a little different for the past few years because of the bad economy in the US. The federal government has been subsidizing unemployment funds in most states to help them pay benefits for longer than the normal amount of time because of the high unemployment rate. However, that hasn't resulted in the benefits themselves being reclassified as means tested public benefits. Even if it had, the only difference it would make is that the benefits couldn't be counted as income on an affidavit of support.

They're going to look at the big picture here. The two issues they're primarily concerned with are whether the beneficiary will have a qualified sponsor who meets the statutory minimum income requirements for adjustment of status, and whether circumstances indicate the beneficiary is likely to become a public charge. If you have qualified joint sponsor then they'll tend to conclude you'll also have a qualified sponsor when it comes time for adjustment of status (I'm talking specifically about Australia here - some consulates rarely consider a joint sponsor for a K1 visa). If the beneficiary is capable of working, and especially if they have specific job skills, then they'll tend to conclude that the beneficiary won't become a public charge.

I can't remember the last time I read about a beneficiary in Australia being denied on the public charge determination when they had a well qualified joint sponsor.


12/15/2009 - K1 Visa Interview - APPROVED!

12/29/2009 - Married in Oakland, CA!

08/18/2010 - AOS Interview - APPROVED!

05/01/2013 - Removal of Conditions - APPROVED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Didn't find the answer you were looking for? Ask our VJ Immigration Lawyers.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×