I-864 Assets

[S2N 106]

5 hours ago, Larry and Marides said:

Old user is not the strongest. Don't be weak. Be assertive. It doesn't take much effort to write a letter of explanation. Actually, based on feedback it's actually better to submit the letter of assets explanation when submitting the initial documents. 

However, while a joint sponsor may seem like the path of least resistance, it is not always the most appropriate or sustainable solution. The reality is that many applicants simply do not have access to a joint sponsor, and more importantly, many don’t actually need one. The law provides clear pathways for petitioners to qualify based on their own income or assets, including retirement income, investment holdings, and other verifiable financial resources. The problem often arises when legal representatives fail to fully explore or advocate these alternatives—whether due to oversight, expedience, or a one-size-fits-all mentality.

Fighting the current isn’t about being contrarian. It’s about asserting your eligibility within the framework of the law when your circumstances justify it. It's about ensuring the system works as intended, especially for those who don’t have the resources or support structures others might take for granted. Many have had cases derailed or delayed because attorneys defaulted to joint sponsorship rather than building a case around the petitioner’s actual financial capacity.

So while opinions may vary, and some may view joint sponsorship as a quicker route, the deeper issue is whether legal professionals are acting in the best interest of the applicant—or simply taking the easy way out themselves. For those who can meet the requirements independently, that path is not just viable—it’s often the most prudent and empowering one. I have already taught 10 people how to write a proper letter of explanation, and they have been successful. 

Most people would rather resolve their cases quicker and be with their loved ones faster rather than fight with the government to prove a point. That’s not weakness, that’s a rational cost benefit analysis, and that is why you hire a legal professional. They would be negligent in their fiduciary duty to you if they didn’t mention that the easiest way is to get a joint sponsor even if the government was wrong in the original denial. If someone is paying a lawyer, they have a right to be informed of that and decide if they want to fight on this point or take the easy way. Many if not most people will prefer the easy way, and that’s perfectly reasonable, especially if you’ve been separated from your spouse for 2+ years.

 

And yes, like I said, it’s not the best option for everyone. Someone might not be able to find a joint sponsor or there may be reasons outside the immigration system to prefer to fight to qualify on assets. It looks like for you there were and it worked out. That doesn’t change that the best advice from a purely immigration perspective is that a joint sponsor is the quickest way if income doesn’t meet the threshold, so if it’s available and it’s something you are comfortable with having one lined up will speed up the process.

 

For the overwhelming majority of people it’s not about being right or wrong, it’s about getting to live with their loved ones in the fastest manner.

Edited April 7 by S2N

[PeterMcS 4]

About the amount of assets needed if there's insufficient income, for purposes of citing the law/regulations in my cover letter to a I-290B: we're married, so the relevant standard is 3x the income deficiency? She came in on a K-1, so before we were married it would have been 5x? We have far more than either: I just want to make sure I cite the right regulation.

[pushbrk 13,386]

If using a joint sponsor obligated nobody, and finding a willing, qualified joint sponsor was as easy as finding Mexican Food in Southern California, I would agree with that solution.  Circumstances and priorities matter.  

[S2N 106]

9 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

If using a joint sponsor obligated nobody, and finding a willing, qualified joint sponsor was as easy as finding Mexican Food in Southern California, I would agree with that solution.  Circumstances and priorities matter.  

Absolutely. They’re the single most important factor.

 

It is true that the quickest way if there’s a willing joint sponsor is to get one when a consulate ignores assets. It’s also true that it’s possible to ask a consulate to reconsider and provide them an explicit roadmap, but that this will likely take longer.

 

For many people applying for a spousal visa while separated, the speed of reunification is the most important factor, which is why the joint sponsor route is often suggested. For others, there are other considerations or there might not be a willing and qualified joint sponsor.

 

Letting people know there’s multiple options and the pros and cons of both is one of the great benefits of VJ.