Using Assets for I-864

[brown & orange 2]

Could you tell me why  it is not as safe to try to use assets to meet the poverty line?

In our case, we must now use her 2016 tax return, which without the eligibility of her untaxed income, shows a gap of about $7,500 to reach the poverty line. So, $22,500 needed in assets, and the house equity will show somewhere between $59,000 and $70,000, once the appraisal is done.

Is the risk that the CO might determine that since her earned income is lacking $7,500 without assets, it might be that she will not be able to maintain me at the 125% above poverty level without selling our home?

That is confusing to us. On one hand it is allowed, on the other hand it is up to the CO's discretion, it seems?

Is there any way to know if the gap of $7,500 is too big to allow assets to cover?

And the frustrating thing in our case, is that her actual yearly income is above the poverty line by about $5,000 including her untaxed sources, which are technically not considered part of "gross income".  So we know in reality her sponsorship is sufficient.  But our lawyer refuses to even mention the untaxed income if we submit her assets.

So why is using assets risky?
 

[pushbrk 13,639]

You really should begin by studying the I-864 instructions.  Unless the petitioner is self employed, their tax return is not where you get the figure for current income.  What are the untaxed sources of income and do they bring her actual income above the required minimum?

 

It's not that using assets is risky.  The issue is which assets are considered and which are not.  Equity in the home in which the sponsor lives, is never considered liquid so cannot be used to make up for an income shortfall.  However, it could very well be that actual current income is sufficient.  It depends on the source and amount of actual income "current" income, not what the tax return says about the past.  (Again, unless she is self employed.  Then and only then does the 2016 tax return indicate "current income".)

[geowrian 22,339]

55 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

It's not that using assets is risky.  The issue is which assets are considered and which are not.  Equity in the home in which the sponsor lives, is never considered liquid so cannot be used to make up for an income shortfall.  However, it could very well be that actual current income is sufficient.  It depends on the source and amount of actual income "current" income, not what the tax return says about the past.  (Again, unless she is self employed.  Then and only then does the 2016 tax return indicate "current income".)

I thought that was changed in the I-864 last year...? The I-864 instructions speak about the liquidity requirement and hardship aspects, then immediately says "You may include the net value of your home as an asset.". It doesn't say secondary home, whereas it makes it a point to mention that a primary car cannot be included.

 

"Only assets that can be converted into cash within one year and without considerable hardship or financial loss to the owner may be included. The owner of the asset must include a description of the asset, proof of ownership, and the basis for the owner’s claim of its net cash value.

 

You may include the net value of your home as an asset. The net value of the home is the appraised value of the home, minus the sum of any and all loans secured by a mortgage, trust deed, or other lien on the home. If you wish to include the net value of your home, then you must include documentation demonstrating that you own it, a recent appraisal by a licensed appraiser, and evidence of the amount of any and all loans secured by a mortgage, trust deed, or other lien on the home. You may not include the net value of an automobile unless you show that you have more than one automobile, and at least one automobile is not included as an asset."

[pushbrk 13,639]

No consular officer is going to consider the primary home as liquid, based on the definition you correctly quoted, BECAUSE selling the primary home is going to create considerable loss to the owner.  Do you think a Consular officer is going to believe she'll actually sell her home to support her husband?  If it's the only choice available, then it can't hurt.  Hopefully the equity is substantial, AND the intending immigrant is easily employable.  I didn't say the house equity couldn't be included. I said it wouldn't be considered liquid.

[brown & orange 2]

3 hours ago, pushbrk said:

You really should begin by studying the I-864 instructions.  Unless the petitioner is self employed, their tax return is not where you get the figure for current income.  What are the untaxed sources of income and do they bring her actual income above the required minimum?

 

It's not that using assets is risky.  The issue is which assets are considered and which are not.  Equity in the home in which the sponsor lives, is never considered liquid so cannot be used to make up for an income shortfall.  However, it could very well be that actual current income is sufficient.  It depends on the source and amount of actual income "current" income, not what the tax return says about the past.  (Again, unless she is self employed.  Then and only then does the 2016 tax return indicate "current income".)

The one source of untaxed income that we believed surely qualified is an adoption subsidy. It, along with her employment income brings her just above what's required. It is a non means tested subsidy, so we intended to have our lawyer argue it's validity. After making us wait 2 weeks, saying she was preparing the brief, she suddenly refused, quoting the following:

 

"The issue was less a matter of whether the subsidy is a means-tested public benefit, and more a matter of whether it could even be considered your income. It cannot be counted as your income under the federal government’s rules.  So we cannot use that income to meet MIR and you must find a cosponsor.

 

 I found that the State Adoption Subsidy is a type of Title IV-E benefit; indeed, the state program exists because of the federal program.  If you skip to the last page of the memo, it specifically notes: “State’s adoption assistance payments made pursuant to Section X are, therefore, not includible in the recipient’s gross incomes.”

 

I’m sorry for this result.  I’m going to place my work on your case on hold for now.  Please let me know if you have anything to add to this, or if there is something you think I may be misunderstanding."

 

The subsidy is not earmarked for use for anything child related, and the document she quoted was an IRS document simply verifying that the subsidy is untaxed. Also, our adoption subsidy is a non Title IV-E, anyway - it's only a State provided subsidy. So... it has been a long, drawn out exhausting, frustrating battle with our lawyer, who is now working for us from the original fee they asked for, and clearly doesn't want to spend time on our case!

 

When we tried to convince her, she was bent on refusing to consider that untaxed income is still part of my wife's total income. 

 

She also found that the second source, a Social security retirement benefit for our daughter, from her retired father, wouldn't qualify because the 10-99 came in our daughter's name. That one is earmarked for use to care for the needs of our child, including general household bills and such. We could see the reasoning for that one. Her assertions may or may not be correct.  She says it is our daughter's income and because she is a minor, cannot be counted in my total income. 

[pushbrk 13,639]

I think the lawyer is being overly cautious in connection with the adoption and SS survivor's benefits, as it relates to "current income", because current income does not come from a tax return, nor is it documented by a tax return, except when the sponsor is self employed.  This reliance on the IRS and the 2016 tax return for stating "current income" is simply not the way the I-864 works in practice.  Perhaps your attorney is not well versed in family based immigration.

[brown & orange 2]

34 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

I think the lawyer is being overly cautious in connection with the adoption and SS survivor's benefits, as it relates to "current income", because current income does not come from a tax return, nor is it documented by a tax return, except when the sponsor is self employed.  This reliance on the IRS and the 2016 tax return for stating "current income" is simply not the way the I-864 works in practice.  Perhaps your attorney is not well versed in family based immigration.

"If it's the only choice available, then it can't hurt. Hopefully the equity is substantial, AND the intending immigrant is easily employable. I didn't say the house equity couldn't be included. I said it wouldn't be considered liquid." So, saying it couldn't hurt - makes us wonder - if we used the house as an asset to bring her to MIR, and the CO disagreed, he could potentially reject our petition which he's holding for a joint sponsor. That's why we really need help knowing what to do! Should we go back to fighting our lawyer to use her untaxed income as being part of current income when she has been evasive and insistent on not doing that? Should we try to argue it ourselves without her, or should we use the home asset? The equity would be between $50,000 and $70,000. I am not sure the CO would consider me to be employable, as I've never held a job in Ghana. Our attempts at asking over 20 people to be a joint sponsor have all failed.

[pushbrk 13,639]

If you have given up on a joint sponsor then the only option I see is to submit an updated I-864 and supporting documentation correctly stating the petitioner's current income.  How you handle doing this with or without the attorney, is for you to decide.  I don't really understand how you got the existing affidavit through NVC with a current income below the required amount.

[brown & orange 2]

16 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

If you have given up on a joint sponsor then the only option I see is to submit an updated I-864 and supporting documentation correctly stating the petitioner's current income.  How you handle doing this with or without the attorney, is for you to decide.  I don't really understand how you got the existing affidavit through NVC with a current income below the required amount.

We appreciate your thoughts. Our lawyer sent copies of the subsidy checks, and the SS 10-99 and crossed out the adjusted gross income figure on her tax return - writing in a number which totaled her current income with and asterisk as follows:

*includes $8,250 in untaxed income 
But she really gave no written explanation what these sources were, so we think the CO was uninformed.  He pointed to her adjusted gross income on her tax return, during the interview and kept saying she was below the poverty level, even when I kept saying her untaxed income brought her above.

[pushbrk 13,639]

The lawyer was misinformed as well.  There was no need to alter the tax return.  What was needed was to correctly state the current income (not in the tax section of the affidavit) and then properly document the current income.  Without the full information as to current income, I too am in the blind as the what is the correct current income.  You would want to list each current income source and it's annual amount, then document it.  Often the documentation is for a month, but that's easy enough to multiply by 12.  What is the current employment income? You have never referred to that, only the tax return, from which current income is NOT derived.

[brown & orange 2]

13 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

The lawyer was misinformed as well.  There was no need to alter the tax return.  What was needed was to correctly state the current income (not in the tax section of the affidavit) and then properly document the current income.  Without the full information as to current income, I too am in the blind as the what is the correct current income.  You would want to list each current income source and it's annual amount, then document it.  Often the documentation is for a month, but that's easy enough to multiply by 12.  What is the current employment income? You have never referred to that, only the tax return, from which current income is NOT derived.

The current yearly employment income (for tax year 2016) is $18,186. The yearly subsidy is $8,774 and the yearly SS income is $4,104.
Plus $1,164 in child support.

[pushbrk 13,639]

2016 is not current.  What is her current income from her job?  It would be documented by a pay stub, not a tax return.  Is the child support court ordered and does she have a record of actually receiving it?  What is the household size?

[brown & orange 2]

6 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

2016 is not current.  What is her current income from her job?  It would be documented by a pay stub, not a tax return.  Is the child support court ordered and does she have a record of actually receiving it?  What is the household size?

Current monthly income is $348 weekly, gross. Yes child support is court ordered. It's $97 per month and has a record of it being deposited into her bank account. Household size, including me is 3.

[mallafri76 1,012]

We used pure assets in my name (immigrating spouse), held in Sweden and didn't have an issue. Many people use assets to meet all or part of the I-864 requirement. Whatever assets you use must be able to turn into cash within one year without hardship to you. Does your foreign spouse maybe have a home or car that you're selling in the foreign country? That can be used. 

[amul 229]

13 hours ago, brown & orange said:

Current monthly income is $348 weekly, gross. Yes child support is court ordered. It's $97 per month and has a record of it being deposited into her bank account. Household size, including me is 3.

Everyone is talking about selling, but if needed (and given that you have enough equity), your primary home can be used to borrow against. Has anyone thought of this option?