Worried! Bringing my mom here and affraid to get denied

[JeanneAdil 6,191]

I never mean to offend an OP or VJ and usually do not post

i only did a CR1 and there are so many more visas and stages for a K1 to go thru

i never had to do ROC or AOS in the US but i open VJ each day and do not and read thru and learn but not advise as i am not "in the know"

i usually do not even sign in as subjects are often beyond my experience and knowledge

but for insurance and health care and fighting insurance companies i do know a thing or 2 

my mom lost a kidney and my brother had a very expensive lung transplant / we are talking millions of dollars 

when he did pass away,  he was from March to August in intensive care in Pittsburgh

and there is no way a person can prepare for  major illness :   no way at all

so, in this case the CO will determine the outcome

and,  usually,  they do approve a parent

 

I am in full belief that immigration sometimes does not go far enough and they should have a list of debts of petitioner and a credit report :  this is only my opinion 

 

[artcodex 28]

5 hours ago, Unlockable said:

The issue is not being taken care of living expenses. The issue is the risk healthcare coverage. Sure, a person can bring over n elder parent and provide a roof over their heads and a warm plate of food to eat, but there are many that can not afford $800 - $1200 expense. Remember, most Americans are living in debt. Many can afford to pay for healthcare, but they don't want to. And that has been a huge issue in and outside of immigration for a long time.

I think with current guidance they take into account salary, expenses, and debt. So they generally try to use this to figure out yes or no they can afford to pay for healthcare insurance. Realistically consular officers cannot predict the future and only can determine current capability to meet requirements and likelihood of this changing/not changing in future. So for people who can pay for health care and can prove this but then don't choose to actually do this, I don't think there is any concrete way for a consular office to assess this before granting/denying a visa, this is what makes things so difficult.

[SalishSea 16,770]

Just now, artcodex said:

I think with current guidance they take into account salary, expenses,

Incorrect.  Expenses and debt are not taken into account, or even disclosed.

[artcodex 28]

4 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

My father has been chronically ill for the past year, in and out of hospital, surgery, rehab. (And he has always been totally fine health wise until the last couple of years.) Luckily he worked long enough and has Medicare.  His bills would have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars without that. Just some context for you. This is just stuff that happens when you get old. Average annual healthcare costs in 2010 (will be higher now) for someone aged 65 were over $18k  per year. https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/health-care/elderly-medical-spending-medicare/

its ok for those who qualify for Medicare because it pays most of it, but for those who don’t...

 

 

 

Right but when it comes to consular assessment one can only really asses current health as it pertains to potential future health costs (ap. Lets say for example you have a parent 55 years old and is pretty good health, maybe in a year from now they will have major health issues and will suffer with chronic complications for years to come costing a fortune, but they go for a consular interview today, there is no way for a consular officer to predict unforeseen future complications they can only go on current health and health history.

[artcodex 28]

4 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

I missed the “humble question” about forecasting into the future, which I presume was sarcastic rather than humble, but actually that’s exactly what insurance companies do when they figure out your health and life premiums.  Life expectancy, cost of healthcare etc is not that difficult to calculate for the average person. Of course your parent like mine could end up costing way more than average...

Right they could but I think the CO can only deduce average based on current health and health history.

[artcodex 28]

47 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Incorrect.  Expenses and debt are not taken into account, or even disclosed.

Sorry what I meant was with the current guidelines they are implementing right now like the new public charge rule. My assessment was broad but the new I-944 looks like it will consider debt, and I assume their may be guidance to follow for consular processing that is similar. I know today they don't have these considerations but I'm looking at changes that are near to being implemented that would affect future cases.

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

3 minutes ago, artcodex said:

Right they could but I think the CO can only deduce average based on current health and health history.

and AGE!!!! Do you think OP bringing in a 23-year old as dependent would be looked at the same way as a 53-year old? Of course not. Even healthy people get old, and age costs. The COs are well aware of this!  And it is now very explicitly part of the guidelines, it was always mentioned before but now has a whole line all to itself! Not only that - it is also first on the list of considerations! There is reason that countries that do points-based immigration penalize you for being over a certain age (usually somewhere in the early 40s), and it's the same reason age is important for US immigration. 

 

And also the same reason there will never be "one number" as someone suggested that would be a blanket yes/no.  Seriously, if you are comparing say a 23-year old computer science graduate (or some other degree in demand) with a retiree who will not be earning any income at all in the future (well that story changes in this thread when you point that out, but nevermind), do you honestly think a CO is going to think one number will work for both sets of circumstances?

[artcodex 28]

4 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

and AGE!!!! Do you think OP bringing in a 23-year old as dependent would be looked at the same way as a 53-year old? Of course not. Even healthy people get old, and age costs. The COs are well aware of this!  And it is now very explicitly part of the guidelines, it was always mentioned before but now has a whole line all to itself! Not only that - it is also first on the list of considerations! There is reason that countries that do points-based immigration penalize you for being over a certain age (usually somewhere in the early 40s), and it's the same reason age is important for US immigration. 

 

And also the same reason there will never be "one number" as someone suggested that would be a blanket yes/no.  Seriously, if you are comparing say a 23-year old computer science graduate (or some other degree in demand) with a retiree who will not be earning any income at all in the future (well that story changes in this thread when you point that out, but nevermind), do you honestly think a CO is going to think one number will work for both sets of circumstances?

Right, I think in this case and confusing part is the employment history and employability more then that though. Of course the age is a consideration for positive or negative factor, but right now the guidelines read out under 18 or over 61 to be a negative factor, and while that doesn't preclude some age based assessment being made it does make it less likely to be age (53 in this case) vs more likely to be based on employment history and employability.

[HRQX 4,145]

7 hours ago, missileman said:

Are the 2 children immigrating to the US also?

Just a note that IR-5 doesn't allow "derivative applicants."

Edited October 9, 2019 by HRQX

[Crazy Cat 39,215]

2 minutes ago, HRQX said:

Just a a note that IR-5 doesn't allow "derivative applicants."

Thanks

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

10 minutes ago, artcodex said:

Right, I think in this case and confusing part is the employment history and employability more then that though. Of course the age is a consideration for positive or negative factor, but right now the guidelines read out under 18 or over 61 to be a negative factor, and while that doesn't preclude some age based assessment being made it does make it less likely to be age (53 in this case) vs more likely to be based on employment history and employability.

We already identified the employment history and employability as being an issue... and it's all connected. Mom at this age should have 12 good years of productive work left in her and normally I'd say, great! Not a problem! She can complete all the 40 quarters required for getting full medicare and SS benefits, and hopefully get some decent money into a 401k too. But when mom at this age is described as retiree and then that is later modified to "she can get some part time retail work"... it's not the same picture at all. (and when i asked about english ability i was deflected with some answer about night stocking. Ability to speak english will greatly influence her earning ability.)

Edited October 9, 2019 by SusieQQQ

[artcodex 28]

3 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

We already identified the employment history and employability as being an issue... and it's all connected. Mom at this age should have 12 good years of productive work left in her and normally I'd say, great! Not a problem! She can complete all the 40 quarters required for getting full medicare and SS benefits, and hopefully get some decent money into a 401k too. But when mom at this age is described as retiree and then that is later modified to "she can get some part time retail work"... it's not the same picture at all. (and when i asked about english ability i was deflected with some answer about night stocking. Ability to speak english will greatly influence her earning ability.)

Yes I agree. Thats the circumstance that is more confusing or concerning in this case.

[Boiler 43,429]

My impression is that most people expect to work into their 70's.

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

1 hour ago, SusieQQQ said:

 Ability to speak english will greatly influence her earning ability.

Just on this, this is unrelated to skills too. I just recalled a guy who came round a couple of times on our homeowners insurance to look at our range and our fridge when they started playing up. Russian dude. From what I could figure out the guy was actually a qualified engineer of some sort. But could barely speak English, so he was spending his days repairing ovens. 

[geowrian 22,335]

9 hours ago, IR5momandme said:

I do not know if you realize that the CO sometimes (I would say most of the time) do not look at the document that the beneficiary bring to the interview. How could she prove she has all of the assets??? This happen a lot, especially with B1/B2 visa. Some people just get approved and people with proof get denied and no appealing process. 

I would not compare a visitor visa to an immigrant one. The requirements and COs handling them are vastly different. COs will consider financial evidence presented for an immigrant visa, although one cannot definitively ascertain how or if it will impact the decision.
 

8 hours ago, sol_sol said:

To be honest, CO are going to abuse these rules openly. There will be more biased attitude in embassies. I think government should set clear number so that people prepare according to that

A clear number to determine if somebody will be a public charge or not. Sounds nice, but it’s impossible to do so in a meaningful manner. No 2 people have the same set of circumstances. There’s no way a 30 year old doctor and a 70 year old housewife/househusband who never worked will function without assistance with the same level of risk. There are far, far too many factors to consider to have any number or automatic calculation cover it properly.

 

8 hours ago, IR5momandme said:

What I mean is when she is in the US. CO is not future teller to know when someone can get sick and possibly use all of the public assistance she can use. I think when they see the medical check up by embassy and find out that my mom healthy should be enough. No more future references.

The medical report covers contagious disease issues, possible substance abuse or self harm, etc. It’s not comprehensive to determine somebody’s overall well-being.

 

COs are not fortune tellers, but they do have to make a prediction. They have a set of criteria to guide them, but there is nothing definitive. I have seen somebody making $200k/year denied and need a joint sponsor, and I have seen somebody making under $50k approved. Obviously their circumstances were more complicated than just their sponsor’s earnings. Somebody has to make a judgement call.

 

4 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

Incorrect.  Expenses and debt are not taken into account, or even disclosed.

For an immigrant visa, right. For AOS, the new I-944 will require disclosure of debts.

Edited October 10, 2019 by geowrian