I-864 questions

[CcLH 0]

I need some help with a few questions that came up while preparing form I-864.

 

Part 4, item 5: I am living and have lived most of my life in Sweden. I have never lived in the US, but me and my husband plan to move there as soon as he gets his visa approved. What should I answer to “Country of Domicile”? In the description it says “indicate the country where you maintain your principal residence and where you plan to reside for the foreseeable future.”

 

Part 5: Sponsor’s household size. Here I fill in 1 in items 1, 2 and 3. Since the principal immigrant is my husband, our household size would now ad up to three. We are however only, two. How should I fill this out correctly?

 

Part 6: I am employed in Sweden, at an institutet not related to the US. I have never been employed in the US and this employment will not be maintained when moving to the US. What should I fill out in items 1-7? And if I shouldn’t write my Swedish employment, what should I write in item 6 (unemployed since) if I never worked in  the US?

 

Part 7: Is it possible to only use the principal immigrants assets as proof of support, if the numbers meet the requirement? Meaning no income or assets from any sponsor, nor income from the principal immigrant.

 

Any help I can get is appreciated!

[Roel 7,191]

What you need is

Your filed US taxes. (You are required to file those no matter where you live)

Establish domicle in the US - find a job there, find a place to live, get state ID or driving license. 

 

 

[fdhs 9]

34 minutes ago, CcLH said:

I need some help with a few questions that came up while preparing form I-864.

 

Part 4, item 5: I am living and have lived most of my life in Sweden. I have never lived in the US, but me and my husband plan to move there as soon as he gets his visa approved. What should I answer to “Country of Domicile”? In the description it says “indicate the country where you maintain your principal residence and where you plan to reside for the foreseeable future.”

 

Part 5: Sponsor’s household size. Here I fill in 1 in items 1, 2 and 3. Since the principal immigrant is my husband, our household size would now ad up to three. We are however only, two. How should I fill this out correctly?

 

Part 6: I am employed in Sweden, at an institutet not related to the US. I have never been employed in the US and this employment will not be maintained when moving to the US. What should I fill out in items 1-7? And if I shouldn’t write my Swedish employment, what should I write in item 6 (unemployed since) if I never worked in  the US?

 

Part 7: Is it possible to only use the principal immigrants assets as proof of support, if the numbers meet the requirement? Meaning no income or assets from any sponsor, nor income from the principal immigrant.

 

Any help I can get is appreciated!

For Part 4, item 5, you write "United States". This will be different to your current address in Sweden, so (as it says in the instructions for I-864) you will need to write a printed explanation of your intent to reestablish domicile, as well as including evidence that you intend to move to the US.

 

Part 5 item 3 should be left empty-this is for persons NOT included in the affidavit, and your husband already is (since he is the principle immigrant).

 

Parts 6 & 7: it is absolutely fine to just use the assets of your husband. You can write the name of your current employer, but leave the income blank or write "will not continue" in Part 6 number 10. You can leave the rest of part 6 empty, and just complete part 7 listing your husband's assets. 

[pushbrk 12,246]

1 hour ago, fdhs said:

For Part 4, item 5, you write "United States". This will be different to your current address in Sweden, so (as it says in the instructions for I-864) you will need to write a printed explanation of your intent to reestablish domicile, as well as including evidence that you intend to move to the US.

Wrong.  This person has never lived in the USA, so is NOT domiciled in the USA.  Their task is to show intent to establish (not re-establish in this case) domicile in the USA.  If they have an address in the USA, the DS260 will ask for their intended address and it can go there.  If they have no US address, then so be it.  

 

Petitioners, beneficiaries, applicants ALL need to ALWAYS tell the truth.  You just told this one to lie.  Not good.

[fdhs 9]

6 hours ago, pushbrk said:

Wrong.  This person has never lived in the USA, so is NOT domiciled in the USA.  Their task is to show intent to establish (not re-establish in this case) domicile in the USA.  If they have an address in the USA, the DS260 will ask for their intended address and it can go there.  If they have no US address, then so be it.  

 

Petitioners, beneficiaries, applicants ALL need to ALWAYS tell the truth.  You just told this one to lie.  Not good.

No. It's not lying. From the I-864 instructions:

Quote

Indicate the country where you maintain your principal residence and where you plan to reside for the foreseeable future. If your mailing address and/or place of residence is not in the United States, but your country of domicile is the United States, you must attach a typed or printed explanation and documentary evidence indicating how you meet the domicile requirement. If you are not currently living in the United States, you may meet the domicile requirement if you can submit evidence to establish that any of the following conditions apply:

If you intend to back to the US, then isn't this "where you plan to reside for the foreseeable future"? The DoS also seems to indicate that you have to write "US" here; on  their FAQs for the I-864 it says:

Quote

Can a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) petitioner who is not domiciled in the United States be a financial sponsor?

 

No, U.S. law requires that sponsors be domiciled (live) in any of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States.

 

Anyway, I did as follows (and didn't have any problems): wrote my current address in Sweden at all places where an address is needed and possible to enter a non-US address. For Part 4, item 5, we wrote "United States". As this is not the same as our current address, we included (per the instructions) a typed letter with the following text "Although the sponsor currently resides at blah blah blah, Sweden, he intends to establish domicile in the US no later than (a date). As evidence of this, the following are included:"

 

At which point, I listed a job letter, plane ticket, and lease starting in 4 months' time (and included copies of them as evidence). 

 

Also from the FAQs:

Quote

How can a financial sponsor establish a domicile?

 

When a sponsor has clearly not maintained a domicile in the United States, he/she must re-establish a U.S. domicile to be a sponsor. The aspiring sponsor may take steps, including the examples given below, to show that the United States is his/her principal place of residence:

• Find employment in the United States
• Secure a residence in the United States
• Register children in U.S. schools
• Relinquish residence abroad
• Other evidence of a U.S. residence

If the sponsor establishes U.S. domicile, he or she must return to the United States to live before the sponsored immigrant may enter the United States. The sponsored immigrant must enter the United States with or after the sponsor.

Again indicating that one should write "United States" as domicile.

[fdhs 9]

7 hours ago, pushbrk said:

This person has never lived in the USA, so is NOT domiciled in the USA.  Their task is to show intent to establish (not re-establish in this case) domicile in the USA.

A more succinct version of the argument in my previous post is that when the I-864 instructions talk about the "domicile requirement", it means that for the I-864 to be approved, you  are required to write "US" in Part 5 item 4. The justification of writing "US" there is then given by point 3 in the instructions "You intend in good faith to reestablish....".

 

This is just my interpretation of the instructions - I'd be happy to find out why it's incorrect  

[pushbrk 12,246]

2 hours ago, fdhs said:

A more succinct version of the argument in my previous post is that when the I-864 instructions talk about the "domicile requirement", it means that for the I-864 to be approved, you  are required to write "US" in Part 5 item 4. The justification of writing "US" there is then given by point 3 in the instructions "You intend in good faith to reestablish....".

 

This is just my interpretation of the instructions - I'd be happy to find out why it's incorrect  

Referring to the bold above, definitely NOT a requirement as others have done the opposite and then provided evidence of intent to establish or re-establish domicile in the US.  Instructions for "sponsors" do not always apply directly to "petitioner sponsors".  The primary reason for this is the simple act of petitioning for a spouse, child or stepchild living abroad with the petitioner, is pretty convincing evidence the petitioner intends to live in the USA.

 

Depending on the country, simply indicating in the DS260 or back in the day, the DS230 the intended address in the US, was sufficient for MOST Consulates in spouse cases.  It IS correct that that any sponsor, petitioner or not, MUST enter the US either with or ahead of the sponsored immigrant.  However that is a requirement that is often ignored upon entry, BECAUSE, it's cumbersome at best to verify.

Edited June 20, 2018 by pushbrk

[pushbrk 12,246]

This sentence, "Indicate the country where you maintain your principal residence and where you plan to reside for the foreseeable future." has distinct meaning.  Note the present tense and the word connective conjunction "and".  A person who has NEVER lived in the USA, submitting an affidavit of support TODAY, for a visa that will not be used until 4 to 10 months from now, cannot truthfully indicate that they both DO....AND....PLAN to reside in the USA in the future.  If and was replaced with OR, then it would be a problem too, as "where you maintain" is a present tense statement.

 

I agree that for a sponsor in that circumstance, the question is a bit ludicrous, as they cannot possibly maintain (in the present tense) a residence in the USA at all, but their current address is also definitely NOT where they intend to live for the foreseeable future either.  This is why, what is correct, and what works are at odds.  Clearly, EITHER will work, and Consular Officers understand the paradox involved.

[fdhs 9]

8 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

This sentence, "Indicate the country where you maintain your principal residence and where you plan to reside for the foreseeable future." has distinct meaning.  Note the present tense and the word connective conjunction "and".  A person who has NEVER lived in the USA, submitting an affidavit of support TODAY, for a visa that will not be used until 4 to 10 months from now, cannot truthfully indicate that they both DO....AND....PLAN to reside in the USA in the future.  If and was replaced with OR, then it would be a problem too, as "where you maintain" is a present tense statement.

 

I agree that for a sponsor in that circumstance, the question is a bit ludicrous, as they cannot possibly maintain (in the present tense) a residence in the USA at all, but their current address is also definitely NOT where they intend to live for the foreseeable future either.  This is why, what is correct, and what works are at odds.  Clearly, EITHER will work, and Consular Officers understand the paradox involved.

Well- surely it depends on what the exact definitions "domicile" and "foreseeable future" are?

 

The next sentence  "If your mailing address and/or place of residence is not in the United States, but
your country of domicile is the United States, you must attach a typed or printed explanation and documentary evidence
indicating how you meet the domicile requirement" also has meaning-it indicates that domicile is not the same as residence. If either condition 1 or 2 of the conditions for the domicile requirement while abroad were fulfilled, the petitioner-sponsor would write US as the country of domicile, so I assumed that the same would be true of condition 3.

 

I still don't see that it's wrong to do as I suggested. (Perhaps I was being needlessly paranoid, but when I was filling it in, I was concerned that a bureaucrat would simply look at the form, see a non-US country listed as domicile, and then not approve without looking at the included explanation).

 

Also note that how much weight is put on the domicile requirement varies from country to country-the Canadians in particular will tell you that it is not sufficient to state your intent to establish domicile. (This doesn't appear to be such a big issue for Sweden, though).

[pushbrk 12,246]

3 minutes ago, fdhs said:

Well- surely it depends on what the exact definitions "domicile" and "foreseeable future" are?

 

The next sentence  "If your mailing address and/or place of residence is not in the United States, but
your country of domicile is the United States, you must attach a typed or printed explanation and documentary evidence
indicating how you meet the domicile requirement" also has meaning-it indicates that domicile is not the same as residence. If either condition 1 or 2 of the conditions for the domicile requirement while abroad were fulfilled, the petitioner-sponsor would write US as the country of domicile, so I assumed that the same would be true of condition 3.

 

I still don't see that it's wrong to do as I suggested. (Perhaps I was being needlessly paranoid, but when I was filling it in, I was concerned that a bureaucrat would simply look at the form, see a non-US country listed as domicile, and then not approve without looking at the included explanation).

 

Also note that how much weight is put on the domicile requirement varies from country to country-the Canadians in particular will tell you that it is not sufficient to state your intent to establish domicile. (This doesn't appear to be such a big issue for Sweden, though).

That is works for you does not make it "right".  It's "wrong" for the OP, because it isn't true.  "Is" and "meet" are used in the present tense.  What they will correctly do is provide evidence and explanation in the "future tense".

 

This kind of thing is actually why many lawyers got an undergraduate degree in English.  LOL  It's also that kind of understanding some of us use in order to find and deal with the ambiguities of instructions MEANT to cover all circumstances but that clearly do not.  You need to know the rules in order to know when to deviate from them, so to speak.

[fdhs 9]

46 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

That is works for you does not make it "right".  It's "wrong" for the OP, because it isn't true.  "Is" and "meet" are used in the present tense.  What they will correctly do is provide evidence and explanation in the "future tense".

 

This kind of thing is actually why many lawyers got an undergraduate degree in English.  LOL  It's also that kind of understanding some of us use in order to find and deal with the ambiguities of instructions MEANT to cover all circumstances but that clearly do not.  You need to know the rules in order to know when to deviate from them, so to speak.

Ok, well - I defer to your greater experience in these matters...I would object to your statement that  I "just told this one to lie" insofar that I gave an explanation of what I believe is a reasonable course of action that is not inconsistent with the I-864 instructions and the DOS's answers to the FAQs. I also explained what I did in circumstances that are not too dissimilar to those of the OP.

 

 

(Sorry to the OP for your thread slightly derailing- I hope you got the answers you needed)

[fdhs 9]

 

14 hours ago, pushbrk said:

This person has never lived in the USA, so is NOT domiciled in the USA. 

Wrong implication. A U.S. citizen who has never lived in the USA, but works for the U.S. government or other organization listed in the I-864 instructions, IS domiciled in the USA.

[pushbrk 12,246]

8 hours ago, fdhs said:

 

Wrong implication. A U.S. citizen who has never lived in the USA, but works for the U.S. government or other organization listed in the I-864 instructions, IS domiciled in the USA.

The OP has not indicated any such employment.  The word "this" in the sentence you quoted gives a different meaning than if I had used "A" or "Any".  

[pushbrk 12,246]

11 hours ago, fdhs said:

I would object to your statement that  I "just told this one to lie" insofar that I gave an explanation of what I believe is a reasonable course of action that is not inconsistent with the I-864 instructions and the DOS's answers to the FAQs.

In my culture, anything untrue is a lie.  I'm aware that in some cultures they have different words to separate untrue from an intentional "lie" but neither USCIS or Consular Officers expect petitioners or visa applicants to say or write ANYTHING untrue.  They are, however, (usually) familiar with certain paradoxes in the forms and instructions that result in non-material misrepresentations, and are trained to overlook those. 

 

While a statement by THIS US Citizen that they ARE domiciled in the US would be false, the false is also considered "immaterial" to the process. (For the exact reasons you state)  

 

Similarly, the old I-130 had a question that was extremely common to misunderstand, and so was answered incorrectly so often in spouse petition cases, both USCIS and Consular Officers just ignored it completely, as the information was clear already anyway.  Question C. 17. asked the petitioner to "list the Husband/Wife and all children of your alien relative."  The petitioner in a spouse case IS the husband or wife of the alien relative, but it was so common for petitioners to list their spouse (as their spouse's spouse) and mix up who's children to list, if any, that that section was simply ignored if it was wrong. 

 

They new already from the first page, who was the spouse of whom, just like they know a petitioner showing a minimum of five years of address history and current address on petition and affidavit of support being outside the US, is very likely NOT (in the present tense) actually domiciled in the USA.

 

All that speaks to why what YOU did in similar situations, while technically wrong, in my opinion, is also immaterial and will be ignored in favor of evidence of INTENT to re-establish domicile.

[Jojo92122 1,924]

16 hours ago, fdhs said:

No. It's not lying. From the I-864 instructions:

If you intend to back to the US, then isn't this "where you plan to reside for the foreseeable future"? The DoS also seems to indicate that you have to write "US" here; on  their FAQs for the I-864 it says:

 

Anyway, I did as follows (and didn't have any problems): wrote my current address in Sweden at all places where an address is needed and possible to enter a non-US address. For Part 4, item 5, we wrote "United States". As this is not the same as our current address, we included (per the instructions) a typed letter with the following text "Although the sponsor currently resides at blah blah blah, Sweden, he intends to establish domicile in the US no later than (a date). As evidence of this, the following are included:"

 

At which point, I listed a job letter, plane ticket, and lease starting in 4 months' time (and included copies of them as evidence). 

 

Also from the FAQs:

Again indicating that one should write "United States" as domicile.

Nice picking out half a sentence and focus on that "where you plan to reside for the foreseeable future."  Why didn't you quote the first half of that sentence?  Why did you leave out "Indicate the country where you maintain your principlal residence?"  Isn't the first part of the question important? 

 

Also, notice the word "AND."  It's not "OR."  So it's not principal residence or where you plan to reside in the foreseeable future.  It's principal residence AND where you plan . . . . 

 

Answer the questions that are ask.  Don't be cute or play word games.

 

Your advice is horrible.