Reuters:Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change

[Ash.1101 1,755]

I mean, it's not like we haven't seen this here on VJ more than once.

This isn't shocking or new.


Also note to those saying there shouldn't be cosponsors.


It should be case by case.

Example, before my husband moved here as my fiance, I was jobless taking care of my special needs daughter. My husband required 3 I-134's (two that were over the poverty lines and then mine) because the CO wasn't sure about the fact I wasn't working. Once he got here I was able to start working immediately, now we work alternating shifts to be able to stay home and take care of my daughter (10am-630pm and 10pm-630am respectively). We make over 60k a year now which goes a long way in Texas for a family of three and a couple of cats.  

Granted  I know this is a best case scenario, but I believe that we are healthy working members of society and are valuable to our jobs for sure. 

I can say tho, there are a lot of members on VJ who's fiance came into a financially struggling house and they never seemed to build up past where they were to start. So I can understand a CO's worry.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Ash.1101

[Jeanne Adil 1,651]

1 hour ago, Mrsjackson said:

What makes you say that? 

It is a matter of opinion only but for an example 

I own a home 4 bedrooms ,  3 baths with a 3 car garage

if this house was in Miami or NYC or Chicago,  etc,  i could not afford it / well i could but the heat and electric would kill me in the north

and i don't like living paycheck to paycheck

so income levels for the lower 48 (as they are stated) are really so dependent on where you live and the poverty level guidelines don't reflect the differences

again,  just an opinion 

[Mr. Data 26]

Scary headline attached to a not-so-scary story. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

6 minutes ago, adil-rafa said:

It is a matter of opinion only but for an example 

I own a home 4 bedrooms ,  3 baths with a 3 car garage

if this house was in Miami or NYC or Chicago,  etc,  i could not afford it / well i could but the heat and electric would kill me in the north

and i don't like living paycheck to paycheck

so income levels for the lower 48 (as they are stated) are really so dependent on where you live and the poverty level guidelines don't reflect the differences

again,  just an opinion 

Totality of circumstances would most likely be when the officer takes where you live into consideration. People can be denied even if they make the minimum 125%. However if you raise the minimum threshold, those who made less but still would not become a pubic burden based on where they live/how they live would be denied. That’s why these officers use their discretion. 

[Visitor User 236]

He was there on I-601A approved?

[Mrsjackson 300]

18 minutes ago, Ash.1101 said:

I mean, it's not like we haven't seen this here on VJ more than once.

This isn't shocking or new.


Also note to those saying there shouldn't be cosponsors.


It should be case by case.

Example, before my husband moved here as my fiance, I was jobless taking care of my special needs daughter. My husband required 3 I-134's (two that were over the poverty lines and then mine) because the CO wasn't sure about the fact I wasn't working. Once he got here I was able to start working immediately, now we work alternating shifts to be able to stay home and take care of my daughter (10am-630pm and 10pm-630am respectively). We make over 60k a year now which goes a long way in Texas for a family of three and a couple of cats.  

Granted  I know this is a best case scenario, but I believe that we are healthy working members of society and are valuable to our jobs for sure. 

I can say tho, there are a lot of members on VJ who's fiance came into a financially struggling house and they never seemed to build up past where they were to start. So I can understand a CO's worry.

There is statistical evidence that the large majority of immigrant’s incomes build over time. Not decline or stay stagnant.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Mrsjackson

[dirtyhippiegirl 85]

Stuff like this always makes me reflect gratefully on where I am in life. My husband had just graduated university and I was still in university when he came over on a K1. I was working 30 hours a week at WalMart + attending class -- my father (a physician) co-sponsored us. We were college-poor as many are in their early 20s but survived with a bit of help from our parents. We have been married for 12 years and live a solid, upper middle class life. With the new guidelines, we certainly could have been written off as future public charges. I didn't graduate nursing school and start pulling in enough income to meet guidelines for like another 4 years. Husband found a great entry level job in aerospace engineering within a few months of getting his greencard.

 

Life isn't always so black or white, I guess.

[millefleur 5,035]

2 hours ago, cyclone27 said:

I would eliminate co sponsors and you need to realistically be able to support who you sponsor.

This is iffy. The income has to be US-based, what if it's a stay-at-home mother USC sponsoring their spouse and they've been living abroad together for years? This was exactly my sister's situation, and her husband got here via the help of a joint sponsor. Now her husband earns a 6 figure income as a computer programmer, clearly has no risk whatsoever at being a public charge and is actually a net gain for the US as a skilled worker. If joint sponsors were eliminated, he would not have been able to get here because my sister could not have sponsored him as she's never had a steady income in her life (and probably never will).

 

It's a case-by-case thing and they should leave it that way. It's hard to apply a one-size-fits all method and joint sponsors also take into account those in the above situation or those living abroad for years for whom showing US income would be difficult.

[Ash.1101 1,755]

2 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

There is statistical evidence that the large majority of immigrant’s incomes build over time. Not decline or stay stagnant.

Interesting!

A lot of people lately in the more recent ROC forums haven't seemed to have that luck.

Granted VJ is a small number of immigrants so there's that too.

[Mrsjackson 300]

3 minutes ago, millefleur said:

This is iffy. The income has to be US-based, what if it's a stay-at-home mother USC sponsoring their spouse and they've been living abroad together for years? This was exactly my sister's situation, and her husband got here via the help of a joint sponsor. Now her husband earns a 6 figure income as a computer programmer, clearly has no risk whatsoever at being a public charge and is actually a net gain for the US as a skilled worker. If joint sponsors were eliminated, he would not have been able to get here because my sister could not have sponsored him as she's never had a steady income in her life (and probably never will).

 

It's a case-by-case thing and they should leave it that way. It's hard to apply a one-size-fits all method and joint sponsors also take into account those in the above situation or those living abroad for years for whom showing US income would be difficult.

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned it’s hard to use a one size fits all. There is a reason totality of circumstances is the method. There is a reason there is not a blanket way to scrutinize every case. Nothing should be eliminated. USCIS knows what they’re doing, and in some cases having a cosponsor makes total sense.

[Mrsjackson 300]

1 minute ago, Ash.1101 said:

Interesting!

A lot of people lately in the more recent ROC forums haven't seemed to have that luck.

Granted VJ is a small number of immigrants so there's that too.

Yeah it’s important to remember that on VJ. It’s a small sample on here. Even for processing times (although I’ve found those fairly accurate). You could even argue variables. I would suggest that those who feel they might be more likely to run into trouble during this process seek out a resource like VJ, whereas those who are in better positions (such as being wealthy) maybe don’t worry about anything and don’t bother with something like VJ. Or maybe they rely on a lawyer. This is the psych major in me coming out now. 

[RLA 323]

2 hours ago, theresaL said:

The article states the wife doesn't work. So, you have a case where the primary sponsor has no income, a household size of 7 and potential income of around $38K per year (125% is almost $49K) and a co-sponsor and a family history of receiving government support. He was rightfully denied on public charge grounds in my opinion. 

Rightfully in the sense that the rules were followed, yes.  The rules are rather dumb, though.  Their stated purpose is to protect American taxpayers.  They achieved the opposite.  They were a family of, say, 6 with an income of $38k, and they used some public assistance.  Now the breadwinner is gone leaving 5 USC with $0 income.  If anything, they are going to use more public assistance.  Net gain for the taxpayer: negative. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

8 minutes ago, RLA said:

Rightfully in the sense that the rules were followed, yes.  The rules are rather dumb, though.  Their stated purpose is to protect American taxpayers.  They achieved the opposite.  They were a family of, say, 6 with an income of $38k, and they used some public assistance.  Now the breadwinner is gone leaving 5 USC with $0 income.  If anything, they are going to use more public assistance.  Net gain for the taxpayer: negative. 

Good point. Whereas before the kids might have been on Medicaid (which they would have paid into through taxes, immigrants might be barred from using benefits but not from paying for them), the mother really has very limited options now and welfare is likely in this scenario. 

[treppenwitz 78]

12 minutes ago, RLA said:

Now the breadwinner is gone leaving 5 USC with $0 income.  If anything, they are going to use more public assistance.  Net gain for the taxpayer: negative. 

They can still live together... in Mexico. It's not totally unthinkable for the family; the immigrant already lives with 2 of the USC children in Mexico:

Quote

Because the family is so strapped, two of the five children, aged 6 and 10, have already been sent to live with Balbino

The family can also move to a Mexican border town and still attend U.S. schools:

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by treppenwitz

[RLA 323]

36 minutes ago, treppenwitz said:

They can still live together... in Mexico.

Maybe they could, but that's beside the point.  USCIS's decision hurts Americans: the taxpayers or the family or, most likely, both.  That's why I think the rule should be revised so that it considers the immigrant's earning potential, not just the sponsor's.