Using "property in trust" to satisfy I-864 asset requirements

[whyisthissohard 0]

I am filing a spouse visa for my wife, my question is I am using my mother as a co-sponsor but we need to use her assets (owned home) to meet the requirements for the I-864. The home is entirely owned and has no loans or anything. The problem is that the deed shows her name, but also that it is held in trust for her by her father who purchased the home for her. So, she's the legal owner, but it's held in trust. Can this property still quality to be used to prove assets?

[JenIK 0]

14 hours ago, Cott789 said:

I am filing a spouse visa for my wife, my question is I am using my mother as a co-sponsor but we need to use her assets (owned home) to meet the requirements for the I-864. The home is entirely owned and has no loans or anything. The problem is that the deed shows her name, but also that it is held in trust for her by her father who purchased the home for her. So, she's the legal owner, but it's held in trust. Can this property still quality to be used to prove assets?

I think, that's okay but you can ask advice from an immigration lawyer.

[Ryan H 3,925]

Moved from Progress Reports to Process & Procedures.

[jan22 3,184]

Depends.  For an asset to qualify, it must be convertible to cash within one year if needed. Can she sell the house without her father's permission? If not, it will likely not qualify.

Edited July 2, 2017 by jan22

[pushbrk 13,837]

39 minutes ago, jan22 said:

Depends.  For an asset to qualify, it must be convertible to cash within one year if needed. Can she sell the house without her father's permission? If not, it will likely not qualify.

The key phrase in the liquidity requirement is "without harm to the sponsor..."  Since the parent is would be harmed by liquidating the home they live in, in order to pay the obligations of the affidavit of support, the Consular Officer is highly unlikely to "consider" such an asset to be "liquid" in the context of determining the likelihood the intending immigrant will become a  public  charge.  It's best, 1, to avoid elderly joint sponsors who may not be around to fulfill their obligations, and 2, to use a WELL qualified joint sponsor with a plausible motivation to provide support if needed.

[whyisthissohard 0]

1 minute ago, pushbrk said:

The key phrase in the liquidity requirement is "without harm to the sponsor..."  Since the parent is would be harmed by liquidating the home they live in, in order to pay the obligations of the affidavit of support, the Consular Officer is highly unlikely to "consider" such an asset to be "liquid" in the context of determining the likelihood the intending immigrant will become a  public  charge.  It's best, 1, to avoid elderly joint sponsors who may not be around to fulfill their obligations, and 2, to use a WELL qualified joint sponsor with a plausible motivation to provide support if needed.

Would a VERY well qualified best friend of 25 years be good? (Makes about 750% of the poverty level)

[pushbrk 13,837]

2 minutes ago, Cott789 said:

Would a VERY well qualified best friend of 25 years be good? (Makes about 750% of the poverty level)

Bingo!

[whyisthissohard 0]

6 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

Bingo!

Yeah, but this person lives on the opposite side of the country from me so the interviewer could question how good of friends we really could be... Dunno how to answer that, but we have known each other all our lives. Perhaps a letter from her stating she is my best friend for 24 years, and why she is doing this for me?

[pushbrk 13,837]

I live on the opposite side of the country as lots of my close family and close friends.  It's the 21st century.  Most Consular Officers understand that.