COnfused about foreign earned income and assets on I-864

[pushbrk 12,137]

3 hours ago, B&C2017 said:

Thank you so much for your help, @geowrian!

So just to clarify... Do I actually write $0, or do I write my income and they will just ignore it and looked at it like a $0?

No, it only exists in my name. It’s actually my pension fund (Like a 401k, for retirement), but when one moves to a non EU/EFTA state like the US, you can have the entire amount paid out after you leave the current employer. That qualifies as asset, right? The majority of it was acquired before the marriage anyways.

Yes, that would be a "liquid asset".  Asset, sure, but this one is also fully liquid unless there is any penalty on withdrawal.

[B&C2017 123]

7 hours ago, pushbrk said:

Yes, that would be a "liquid asset".  Asset, sure, but this one is also fully liquid unless there is any penalty on withdrawal.

Luckily, there's not 🙂 They will tax it at source, which will be the only "penalty", but since the US and Switzerland have a tax agreement, I'm probably better of with the Tax at Source then the US taxes 😊

[B&C2017 123]

8 hours ago, pushbrk said:

Yes, that would be a "liquid asset".  Asset, sure, but this one is also fully liquid unless there is any penalty on withdrawal.

Also I have a letter from the pension fund company stating what the paid out amount (after tax at source) for the withdrawal of pension fund will be which is the number I put on my I-864. So I think I should be fine 🙂

[B&C2017 123]

 

13 hours ago, geowrian said:

So if that is the case for you and you have no other income sources, your current annual income would be $0.

Yes, list the job as current employment. Your work history is part of the bigger picture. It doesn't qualify for the I-864, but it is considered still.

@pushbrk, thank you so much for your feedback on the asset topic! I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me. 

Just to clarify the income statement from geowrian:

- So do I list the job put actually write $0 as annual income?
- Or do I write the actual income and they will just not count it?

 

If I list the annual income as $0, do I:

- Explain in the additional information section why it is $0?
- Is there no need for further explanations?

 

Thank you very much for your help! I'm usually not the one to ask a thousand questions, but will rather google. But this AOS form sure is tricky when both live abroad 🙂

[Punisher 40]

19 hours ago, Punisher said:

I've spent some time last night just to look up the answer (not a guess) to your particular situation.

 

I have already provided you with DETAILED explanation to your questions regarding income situation, including direct quote from the instructions. Everything you need to know is right there in my 1st reply to your thread. What else is it that are you asking for? 

 I stand by what I have said before unfazed by opinions presented here by others.

 

19 hours ago, B&C2017 said:

The part with the income makes total sense - never questioned that!

 

I really appreciate you taking the time to research the income situation for me! Thank you very much for that.

I read instructions back to back, I presented info as it clearly states in the instructions without any unjust extrapolations of facts. I have even included the quote from the instructions to further support my claim.

 

If you keep the thread long enough I'm sure you will get more conflicting information. I have no control over what others see or don't see in official (very clear) instructions. 

 

I do NOT want to raffle any feathers, but sometimes I'm amazed by misinformation presented by long time forum members. That is kind of OK, because they are honestly trying to help without asking for anything in return. 

The true problem though, is users thinking that "high post count" equals best possible advice given and therefore looking for "gurus" as the final word or oracle. 

 

We all make mistakes.  I would happily entertain backed up claims that I'm wrong. So far I haven't read anything in the official instructions that says Sponsor's foreign income must continue after Applicant's move to US, in order to be counted. It is logical to me.

All information regarding requirement to continue the income source after move to US always follows paragraph relating to Intending Immigrant. Extrapolating the very same req. to Sponsor is incorrect.

[NikLR 13,220]

@pushbrk makes a living off helping others through this process and on VJ is known as the authority on the I-864.  If you want it done the right way, you listen to his advice.

The income from the sponsor cannot be temporary and must continue from the same source.  The reason is, once the sponsor moves to the USA, if their income does not continue, it is no longer current income.  Current income is what you are making RIGHT NOW.  If you were unemployed yesterday, your current income was $0.  If you're employed today at $50k a year, you're current income is $50k a year even if you only worked 1 day.  If you quit next Thursday your current income on Friday is is $0.  A CO will NOT approve an I-864 if the sponsor's income will be $0 when they move.  I have never seen it happen since 2012 but I don't look at everyone's I-864 either.  

 

@B&C2017 yes you write $0.  I have seen others write a dollar amount and had to provide evidence of the income at the NVC but then have it disregarded by the CO.  It was actually an Australian case but years ago and I dont remember the name of the user.  You can write a letter explaining the income will not continue but its not needed as generally the CO will understand that when you provide either assets or a joint sponsor. 

 

[B&C2017 123]

1 hour ago, NikLR said:

@pushbrk makes a living off helping others through this process and on VJ is known as the authority on the I-864.  If you want it done the right way, you listen to his advice.

The income from the sponsor cannot be temporary and must continue from the same source.  The reason is, once the sponsor moves to the USA, if their income does not continue, it is no longer current income.  Current income is what you are making RIGHT NOW.  If you were unemployed yesterday, your current income was $0.  If you're employed today at $50k a year, you're current income is $50k a year even if you only worked 1 day.  If you quit next Thursday your current income on Friday is is $0.  A CO will NOT approve an I-864 if the sponsor's income will be $0 when they move.  I have never seen it happen since 2012 but I don't look at everyone's I-864 either.  

 

@B&C2017 yes you write $0.  I have seen others write a dollar amount and had to provide evidence of the income at the NVC but then have it disregarded by the CO.  It was actually an Australian case but years ago and I dont remember the name of the user.  You can write a letter explaining the income will not continue but its not needed as generally the CO will understand that when you provide either assets or a joint sponsor. 

 

Thank you so much @NikLR! I've been following this forum for a few months now and I know that people like you, @pushbrk and @geowrian have not only a lot of knowledge, but also experience on this topic which is why I was hoping for some answers from one of you 🙂 (even though I really appreciate @Punisher for taking the time to try to research this for me. So a BIG thank you to all of you!

We do have my in-laws as joint sponsors since my husband's and my income won't continue in the US (as we both live abroad now), but I will definitly list my employment and his student/student job on the form like it was suggested in terms of the bigger picture. 

[geowrian 22,336]

7 hours ago, B&C2017 said:

Just to clarify the income statement from geowrian:

- So do I list the job put actually write $0 as annual income?
- Or do I write the actual income and they will just not count it?

You would list $0.

 

7 hours ago, B&C2017 said:

If I list the annual income as $0, do I:

- Explain in the additional information section why it is $0?
- Is there no need for further explanations?

No need for an explanation. List your current employment. COs see this all the time and know what is going on.

 

Reminder that the forums are very public and subject to peer review and discussion. Differing opinions can be presented and then evaluated.

I can speak from my experiences over the years on what has consistently worked. I'm sure others do the same.

[Punisher 40]

8 hours ago, NikLR said:

@pushbrk makes a living off helping others through this process and on VJ is known as the authority on the I-864.  If you want it done the right way, you listen to his advice.

The income from the sponsor cannot be temporary and must continue from the same source.  The reason is, once the sponsor moves to the USA, if their income does not continue, it is no longer current income.  Current income is what you are making RIGHT NOW.  If you were unemployed yesterday, your current income was $0.  If you're employed today at $50k a year, you're current income is $50k a year even if you only worked 1 day.  If you quit next Thursday your current income on Friday is is $0.  A CO will NOT approve an I-864 if the sponsor's income will be $0 when they move.  I have never seen it happen since 2012 but I don't look at everyone's I-864 either.  

 

@B&C2017 yes you write $0.  I have seen others write a dollar amount and had to provide evidence of the income at the NVC but then have it disregarded by the CO.  It was actually an Australian case but years ago and I dont remember the name of the user.  You can write a letter explaining the income will not continue but its not needed as generally the CO will understand that when you provide either assets or a joint sponsor. 

 

 

(I apologize for lengthy post!)

 

NikLR, 

I appreciate you taking time to explain your point of view. In light of this, all the great work by pushbrk and what I have said earlier, I will humor you with detailed explanation why I'm not sharing your or other's view, so I don't come as someone making bold statements (like I did above) about others recklessly.

 

Let me start with fundamentals: I happen to think that it is the letter of law (in this case 864 form and its instructions) that are basis for any discussion, not what other experienced member claims without backing it up.

 

As such:

1. The requirement regarding continued foreign income is ALWAYS and ONLY mentioned in regards to intending immigrant or household members. It is in many places but always in the same set up.

2. Don't you think that the govt would go to all this trouble mentioning this requirement many times in the same set up YET not even once mention that in regards to the primary Sponsor IF that was required from them as well?

 

As far as your LOGIC why it needs to continue, for most people it would make a lot of sense.

However before I explain why I think your view is flawed, I remind you what I just wrote above: the form's instructions take any precedence:

 

1. In my honest opinion the logic you presented fundamentally ALTERS what 864 is and what it is not.

2. Let me state that clearly: 864 is NOT Sponsor's "promise" to stay employed, let alone stay employed at the same place!

3. What 864 is, is a CONTRACT to take any future obligations should they arise. It is a fairly long term contract.

4. In order to sign that contract, govt wants to see that Sponsor is "worthy" (for the lack of better word) to sign that obligation.

5. Sponsor is "worthy" not by making future promises to stay employed but by his/her recent past and/or current financial situation.

6. Once 864 is signed it is done, regardless of what happens to Sponsor's career. Otherwise 864 would have to require to update govt on every change in your financial circumstances and therefore reevaluation. 

7. How come it is irrelevant whether the income will continue from the same source? 

 

A. Because it would be worthless expectation, no one knows what the near future will bring (they may be fired next month) and 864 is fairly long term contract to begin with.

But at the very fundamental is a thought that USC Sponsor, through past and or recent actions (employment, assets) proved he/she is "worthy" and it is "reasonable to expect" that the skill/education/heritage/entrepreneurship that allowed the Sponsor to become "worthy" will continue in the future regardless and especially after he/she moves back to US. It would be "unreasonable to think" that as the time progresses Sponsor would not at least try to maintain if not better his financial condition, OTHERWISE one should reasonably assume that USC Sponsor would not consider moving back to US.

 

B. also because there is no requirement for the USC Sponsor residing abroad (unless he/she is no longer domiciled in US) to come back to US with the Applicant, nor is there any question throughout the process what is he going to do.. It would be extremely easy for such Sponsor to prove the income will continue by saying he/she will continue living abroad for a little bit longer, only to decide later to terminate it at any point.

 

8.It would be pointless therefore for the govt to require such continued income from the Sponsors without fundamentally ALTERING what the form 864 is, but then they would likely go much further (constant reevaluation).

 

So anyway you cut it, it doesn't make any sense *(with a small exception down below) to make that requirement in regards to Sponsors. And again, the language in the form's instructions fully SUPPORTS that view.

 

If that is not enough, allow me to  present you with one more argument: 864 does NOT require you to be still employed in the first place *(with a small exception down below). If Sponsor proves being "worthy" to sign the contract by presenting his most recent (1-3 years) employment history he/she may qualify based on that alone. At least according to the 864 form that specifically say that if you meet guidelines either through current income OR Fed.Income Tax Returns then you don't have to present further evidence. Therefore, if you could pass as (temporarily) unemployed then it would be backwards to require on the very same form to have continuing foreign income... 

 

Now, this very same logic described above CAN NOT by extension be applied to i.e. intending immigrant. Why? Because by definition using their incomes means the Sponsor alone could not prove being "worthy" so far to sign the contractual obligation. Besides intending immigrant that promises not to become a public charge can not end up being part of the Sponsor's contract without applying extra conditions ESPECIALLY since that same immigrant will be the one moving to US which by definition is a foreign country to him/her.  

 

* The small exception I mentioned above twice refers to the situation when the incomes are either barely making the threshold or are generally low. Even US based and employed Sponsor that meets 125% PG with a small margin may be still turned down by AO that will decide (i.e. based on recent years or otherwise) that such Sponsor is not "worthy yet" in the eyes of govt to sign such obligation. So it should not come as a surprise to anybody, that foreign employed USC Sponsor in similar situation would be turned down as well. Similarly, unemployed USC based Sponsor that made 30k each of the last 2 years may be turned down as well. But then again, it is not because some (inexistent) employment requirement or continued income requirement but rather because totality of the circumstances.

 

On the other hand, imagine a young professional, after very good school, that made over the last 3 years 100-150k a year (with no assets, as he is paying off student debts or otherwise) and now just temporarily unemployed, he/she shouldn't have problems meeting 864 criteria as US based Sponsor. Similarly, such professional USC employed i.e. by foreign bank, wouldn't have problems qualifying as well and his/her foreign income would count as well (even though would not continue).

 

The problem with the cases you or pushbrk have seen" is likely that you haven't seen STATISTICALLY large number of cases I described directly above, as significantly large group of people that come to VJ or to pushbrk in general are people that have basic problems with reading and comprehending legal forms and barely meet requirements of 864. Therefore it should not come to you as a surprise, that among the cases "you have seen"  you don't see approvals in cases where someone is currently unemployed or USC's foreign income will not continue. The denials you see are result of particular case circumstances and do not result of 864 requirements.  Again, the observations would have to be statistically significant as a small sample of cases is irrelevant and susceptible to observation error (consular AO or NVC stuff's view or interpretations)

 

As far as someone "making a living of ..." or being called authority, guru etc. (this is not to be directed at pushbrk) Throughout my life I have heard all too often the phrase (especially from tradesman) that they have been doing something for so many years so they must be doing it right or know better. The sad truth is that if you've learned something wrong then you will only repeat your mistakes over the years and time will not make the wrongs right. The good think is, that in case you (incorrectly, IMHO) advice some USC Sponsor NOT to use his/her foreign income (because it will not continue) then you are forcing them to alternatively make their case potentially stronger by looking for joint sponsors, so you are not going to hurt them either. But it should not be used to extrapolate facts from that.

 

As I have said before, I would love to be proven wrong (still looking to it) and although I appreciate the effort, unfortunately no one bothers to present any meaningful evidence.

Perhaps arguments "because he says so" are good enough for others, not me.  But I respect others may disagree with my stricter approach.

 

Stepping off my soap box. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Punisher
typos

[Punisher 40]

6 hours ago, B&C2017 said:

We do have my in-laws as joint sponsors since my husband's and my income won't continue in the US (as we both live abroad now), but I will definitly list my employment and his student/student job on the form like it was suggested in terms of the bigger picture. 

 

I thought that you and your son are intending immigrants and your husband is USC Sponsor. Now I see you claiming he has a "student job"? You guys must be very young I guess?

 

Well my assumption here would be that as a student he has barely or no prior work experience (documented through "fat" tax returns) and that his current income (as a student) must be fairly low. Apologies if I'm making wrong assumptions.

 

If the above assumptions are correct, then you have no business listing/adding his income on 864, even if you "subscribed" to the view I'm presenting above in regards to Sponsor's foreign income.

 

AO would likely see income of young student (even though USC) working abroad as irrelevant in evaluating whether he is "worthy" to take on obligation as a Sponsor, even more so if You have to supplement that with your assets.

Heck, I would imagine that even if he was employed in US he would probably be turned down as Sponsor!

 

So much for "foreign income" argument. I going nuts over how much time I devoted for this in vein. if I only knew he is a student I would cut to the chase. I thought that working in CH he is a hotshot making big $$$

Edited June 17, 2020 by Punisher

[NikLR 13,220]

I've seen people on this forum have joint sponsors or assets requested trying to use foreign income.  You can choose to disbelieve that. Your choice but I will state each time you do this, that the advice is not good advice and the correct advice explained.  The OP of that thread can do what they choose. 

[B&C2017 123]

1 hour ago, Punisher said:

 

I thought that you and your son are intending immigrants and your husband is USC Sponsor. Now I see you claiming he has a "student job"? You guys must be very young I guess?

 

Well my assumption here would be that as a student he has barely or no prior work experience (documented through "fat" tax returns) and that his current income (as a student) must be fairly low. Apologies if I'm making wrong assumptions.

 

If the above assumptions are correct, then you have no business listing/adding his income on 864, even if you "subscribed" to the view I'm presenting above in regards to Sponsor's foreign income.

 

AO would likely see income of young student (even though USC) working abroad as irrelevant in evaluating whether he is "worthy" to take on obligation as a Sponsor, even more so if You have to supplement that with your assets.

Heck, I would imagine that even if he was employed in US he would probably be turned down as Sponsor!

 

So much for "foreign income" argument. I going nuts over how much time I devoted for this in vein. if I only knew he is a student I would cut to the chase. I thought that working in CH he is a hotshot making big $$$

Yes, me and my son (his step son) are the immigrants - he’s the USC. He was a consultant before moving to CH to be with me but started his Master’s degree here because he didn’t find a job right away because of the lack of German and because the intent was always, that we would move to the US at some point. And yes, we’re pretty young - early 30’s.

 

I’m very sorry that you assumed he’d be making tons of money just by living in CH. I’m sure your point of view will be beneficial to other members though! All I wanted to know is if I need to list the income (even if it’s a small amount) for the sake of filling the form out right as I always thought that only US income will be counted. And I think this question has meantime been answered in this thread.

Edited June 17, 2020 by B&C2017

[pushbrk 12,137]

15 hours ago, B&C2017 said:

 

@pushbrk, thank you so much for your feedback on the asset topic! I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me. 

Just to clarify the income statement from geowrian:

- So do I list the job put actually write $0 as annual income?
- Or do I write the actual income and they will just not count it?

 

If I list the annual income as $0, do I:

- Explain in the additional information section why it is $0?
- Is there no need for further explanations?

 

Thank you very much for your help! I'm usually not the one to ask a thousand questions, but will rather google. But this AOS form sure is tricky when both live abroad 🙂

Geowrain was correct.  No need for futher explanation.

[geowrian 22,336]

I typed of a lengthy response as well, but ultimately determined it was a fruitless endeavor. I think the OP has received competent (or better) advice thus far and has the tools to make a proper decision.

 

That said, I did want to point out one specific item that I think really needed to be corrected:

1 hour ago, Punisher said:

If that is not enough, allow me to  present you with one more argument: 864 does NOT require you to be still employed in the first place *(with a small exception down below). If Sponsor proves being "worthy" to sign the contract by presenting his most recent (1-3 years) employment history he/she may qualify based on that alone. At least according to the 864 form that specifically say that if you meet guidelines either through current income OR Fed.Income Tax Returns then you don't have to present further evidence. Therefore, if you could pass as (temporarily) unemployed then it would be backwards to require on the very same form to have continuing foreign income... 

The I-864 instructions states:

"Specific Requirements

...

What Are the Income Requirements?

To qualify as a sponsor, you must demonstrate that your income is at least 125 percent of the current Federal Poverty Guidelines for your household size."

 

It does not say past income, so tax returns would not satisfy this requirement (unless tax returns determined your current income, such as self employed individuals).

[pushbrk 12,137]

2 hours ago, Punisher said:

 

The problem with the cases you or pushbrk have seen" is likely that you haven't seen STATISTICALLY large number of cases I described directly above, as significantly large group of people that come to VJ or to pushbrk in general are people that have basic problems with reading and comprehending legal forms and barely meet requirements of 864. Therefore it should not come to you as a surprise, that among the cases "you have seen"  you don't see approvals in cases where someone is currently unemployed or USC's foreign income will not continue. The denials you see are result of particular case circumstances and do not result of 864 requirements.  Again, the observations would have to be statistically significant as a small sample of cases is irrelevant and susceptible to observation error (consular AO or NVC stuff's view or interpretations)

 

 

 

Stepping off my soap box. 

IMO, what you are failing to see, is the words "you are using to meet the requirements of this affidavit..." on page 7 item 7 of the I-864 instructions.

 

Since the foreign income that will not continue from the same source is not going to help the petitioner or intending immigrant "qualify" the number entered should be $0.  That said, I do not think that putting a number in there other than $0 will get the affidavit rejected by NVC.  It will simply be a meaningless number not "considered" current income being used to qualify.

 

Your original assertion was "

Sponsor's foreign income does count towards 864, intending immigrant's does not (unless will continue after move to US). "

 

I would say only as a part of the totality of circumstances, not as "current income".  Current income only comes from a past tax return, if the sponsor is self employed.  Otherwise tax returns are also only part of the totality of circumstances.  In this case, the income that will not continue is not the petitioner's income.  It is the intending immigrants non-continuing income, so need not be mentioned at all.  They can simply skip the forward to the asset section.

Edited June 17, 2020 by pushbrk