New to Forum, CR1, NVC says Affidavit of Support not enough

[khoandre 0]

Hi, I am new to this forum and everything has been smooth sailing so far until I received a pdf file from the National Visa Center yesterday talking about cover letter(s) for my wife's birth certificate and our marriage certificate.

But what concerns me is that at the very end, it says F- Financial Evidence...

We reviewed the Affidavit of Support documentation you sent to the National Visa Center

(NVC). According to the current poverty guidelines, it does not appear you or any of your

sponsors meet the minimum income requirement to sponsor the intending immigrant(s)

for this petition. To avoid delays, you may have an additional sponsor complete an

Affidavit of Support (Form I-864) and provide it to the intending immigrant to submit at

their interview. At that time, a consular officer will make a decision regarding this

requirement.

To view the current poverty guidelines, go to http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-864P.pdf.

For tips on completing Form I-864, go to

http://www.uscis.gov/forms/tips-filing-form-i-864-affidavit-support-under-section-213a-ina

I am utterly confused, upset, and angry about this because I should completely qualify based on the affidavit of support my attorney and I submitted which shows that I am in possession of a house valued at $280,000 and with professional appraisal evidence, NO MORTGAGE, NO DEBT, NO LOANS whatsoever. I own the house completely and I have ZERO DEBT anywhere in my life.


Based on the poverty guidelines for someone who is married and filing for a CR-1, $280,000 worth of assets in the form of a house which SHOULD be considered liquid enough, and should COMPLETELY DESTROY that 3x the poverty guideline amount. So it makes no sense at all that they are denying me. Even if it were the 5x poverty guideline amount, it should completely destroy the requirement.

As a sidenote, we filed using the house because I currently do have not enough income, though I am searching for a job (I am a landlord and full time/overload university student, and unfortunately the current rental income I get only cover the property taxes/other taxes, and then my family accountant always tries to take as many deductions as possible, so she is not helping either and makes me look "poor" when I am not.)

If they are judging me because I am a full time/overload university student, then I feel it is very unfair, especially because I DO meet the income requirements through my assets.

Another issue that I am worried about is that they may be denying this because this house is the one I currently live in.

HOWEVER, I also own COMPLETELY two other houses with about $400,000 worth in them (one being about $150,000 and the other $250,000). (though I did not disclose this to immigration yet... but at the same time they should have seen I have rental income from two other properties based on my taxes)

These two properties are not occupied by anyone (the tenants will be moving out in a few weeks) and can be sold at any time. My lawyer told me not to use those first because they are still in the process of being transferred completely into my sole ownership and this process should be done in about a month (and again I have NO DEBT, NO MORTGAGES, NO LOANS), and also because my lawyer thought it would be better not to use all assets at once, since "if they deny you after you used all your assets, then you would have nothing left."

I see his logic, but I also read here or elsewhere that there are limited number of chances NVC gives for you to prove affidavit of support eligibility. So now, I am a little angry at him for misleading me and possibly destroying my wife's chances of ever coming to live with me.


Basically, I am wondering if anyone knows what is going on and why NVC denied me. Is it because they see that I am young, still in university, and so will not accept my assets even if my assets are well above 3x or 5x or 125% the poverty guidelines? (keep in mind I highly doubt I will find a job in time that will cover the poverty guidelines even if it is JUST my wife and I, because I am an overload university student taking 18-20 credits every quarter)

Is it because the first time I filed the affidavit of support I used the house I currently live in, and did not tell them about the other two properties I own?

I would also be able to gather up about $90,000 in liquid cash in the form of cash in the bank. Would that be enough to satisfy the requirements?

I'm wringing my hands right now because I have heard and read in many cases that a first time denial causes a lot of problems down the road. They did not outright say "denied", but that paragraph about reviewing my affidavit of support and saying it is "insufficient" seems very suspect to me.

Edit: By the way, I am an American citizen BORN here, and it is my wife who is from Morocco.

Edited July 10, 2016 by khoandre

[aleful 1,905]

hi

yes, your lawyer should have known this, it's because immigration thinks that you only own your current home, your current home doesn't count because if immigration would need to liquidate your home, you would be homeless if that were your only home

you have to have more than one home, one car, more than one for them to consider it an asset

it's not a denial, it's an RFE, requesting that you provide some other financial evidence and a very common one

did you provide all the information and proof about your income properties? are they the same houses you mentioned, so that means you currently don't have any income coming from those homes?

Edited July 10, 2016 by aleful

[Penguin_ie 6,000]

Previous answer is correct.

NVC thinks you only own one house, and selling your one and only home is considered an "undue hardship", so one's primary home usually doesn't count for I-864 purposes. Once you submit evidence of the other homes and your equity in them, you should be ok.

[khoandre 0]

hi

yes, your lawyer should have known this, it's because immigration thinks that you only own your current home, your current home doesn't count because if immigration would need to liquidate your home, you would be homeless if that were your only home

you have to have more than one home, one car, more than one for them to consider it an asset

it's not a denial, it's an RFE, requesting that you provide some other financial evidence and a very common one

did you provide all the information and proof about your income properties? are they the same houses you mentioned, so that means you currently don't have any income coming from those homes?

Hi,

Yes, the issue was that I owned partial ownership in the other Two properties at the time, but in about a month the transfer will be complete and I will have Complete ownership of these two Additional properties.

The lawyer said that he did provide proof of the income from the properties (through the tax returns I gave him), but the problem is that the tax returns show that I have a net income of Zero due to all the property taxes I pay and other taxes as well as all the Deductions my accountant takes.

I think he said something about "waiting" to give additional info like the rental contracts I have with the two tenant families, though. So, those were not given to the NVC.

I currently Do have rental income from the Two additional properties, but they are not enough to cover the income requirement because After-Taxes, I have basically "zero" income due to the deduction methods my accountant uses and she refuses to use any other method, and even if other methods were used it would probably not be enough. Also, the families will be moving out in about a month.

Do these two additional properties need to be empty to be considered liquid assets, or does it not matter?

These two other properties, as I said will become ENTIRELY mine within a month (without debt without mortgage without loans without any sort of debt) , and then I will get another two professional appraisals.

Part of the reason we didn't use the other two properties first and opted to use my current home that is completely owned by me, was because other people had partial ownership in those two Other properties at that time, but now those two additional properties will be Completely in my name and my name only, in addition to my current home.

Ok, if it is an RFE and not denial, that is a relief to hear.

How many more chances will I get before they deny or something? Or am I not understanding this process correctly?

By the way thanks for the advice!

Previous answer is correct.

NVC thinks you only own one house, and selling your one and only home is considered an "undue hardship", so one's primary home usually doesn't count for I-864 purposes. Once you submit evidence of the other homes and your equity in them, you should be ok.

Ok, I hope this is the case. Thanks for the advice!

Edited July 10, 2016 by khoandre

[NikLR 13,232]

The way it's worded also sounds like they gave you a CC but want all your evidence to go to the beneficiary for the interview with a new I-864.

So on these homes you will own, you will need professional assessments done on their value, minus their mortgage (if applicable). A copy of the rental agreements and bank statements from you showing income from the homes would be beneficial as well.

[khoandre 0]

The way it's worded also sounds like they gave you a CC but want all your evidence to go to the beneficiary for the interview with a new I-864.

So on these homes you will own, you will need professional assessments done on their value, minus their mortgage (if applicable). A copy of the rental agreements and bank statements from you showing income from the homes would be beneficial as well.

What is a CC?

I already did a professional evaluation for the home I was using as an asset, which they denied.

The other properties will of course be properly evaluated and I will send in bank statements showing the income from the rents.

[NikLR 13,232]

Case complete. Have you read the NVC process wiki?

[Adil & Jeanne 296]

He will need copy of the deeds and at least copy of the front page of appraisal

the deeds will show no liens on the propertys

[NikLR 13,232]

Not necessarily.