I-864 Question – Using Assets to Qualify

[OldUser 10,392]

21 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

Easier for me, as I primarily hang out in the spouse visa forum.  However it is not correct that USCIS or Consular Officers "do not allow" equity in a primary resident to be used as an asset.  What's true is they don't consider it liquid.  In this case, they will know the sponsor has lower expenses because they pay no rent, and they have sufficient liquid assets to make up for the income shortfall.

Everything is technically allowed, even filing I-864 with 0 income and no assets. But why would anybody do it. Same with primary residence 

[pushbrk 13,792]

1 hour ago, OldUser said:

Example with assets:

 

 

 

 

This is an example of documentation and completion errors.  They qualified, but what they presented did not make that clear enough.

[pushbrk 13,792]

1 hour ago, OldUser said:

Everything is technically allowed, even filing I-864 with 0 income and no assets. But why would anybody do it. Same with primary residence 

Everything has a context.  The reason you would file an I-864 with no income or assets is that the petitioner is required to do so in that circumstance.  In such a case, a joint sponsor would be required.  In the OP's situation, they clearly qualify, and the home equity would be considered within its context as part of the totality of circumstances.

 

By your logic marriages fail often, so why would anybody try it?  Qualifying as sponsor using assets is allowed. It requires properly completed affidavit and properly documented qualifying assets.  Anything marginal is risky, but those will clearly qualifying finances are routinely successful using assets to sponsor an immigrant.

Edited 4 hours ago by pushbrk

[OldUser 10,392]

25 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

Everything has a context.  The reason you would file an I-864 with no income or assets is that the petitioner is required to do so in that circumstance.  In such a case, a joint sponsor would be required.  In the OP's situation, they clearly qualify, and the home equity would be considered within its context as part of the totality of circumstances.

 

By your logic marriages fail often, so why would anybody try it?  Qualifying as sponsor using assets is allowed. It requires properly completed affidavit and properly documented qualifying assets.  Anything marginal is risky, but those will clearly qualifying finances are routinely successful using assets to sponsor an immigrant.

We can find many reasons why people who theoretically can qualify using I-864 get issues using them in practice. Subjectively, by observing VJ posts for a while I can conclude that pursuing joint sponsor may be a path of least resistance, otherwise we wouldn't see this many posts of applicants struggling with I-864 when using assets. We can give a green light to somebody who appears to qualify to only find later they lost 3-6 months dealing with RFEs or NOIDs based on intricate technicalities. Adjudicators selectively close eyes in one set of cases and are super maticulous in other cases when it comes to using assets. When something works half of the time, my recommendation is to pick something more robust.

 

In marriage, we can choose the other half. We can date, chat, live together and learn about the person before committing. We cannot pick adjudicator who decides whether I-864 with assets is accepted, so I wouldn't compare it 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by OldUser

[pushbrk 13,792]

32 minutes ago, OldUser said:

We can find many reasons why people who theoretically can qualify using I-864 get issues using them in practice. Subjectively, by observing VJ posts for a while I can conclude that pursuing joint sponsor may be a path of least resistance, otherwise we wouldn't see this many posts of applicants struggling with I-864 when using assets. We can give a green light to somebody who appears to qualify to only find later they lost 3-6 months dealing with RFEs or NOIDs based on intricate technicalities. Adjudicators selectively close eyes in one set of cases and are super maticulous in other cases when it comes to using assets. When something works half of the time, my recommendation is to pick something more robust.

 

In marriage, we can choose the other half. We can date, chat, live together and learn about the person before committing. We cannot pick adjudicator who decides whether I-864 with assets is accepted, so I wouldn't compare it 

 

I understand the belt and suspenders mind set, but I don't subscribe to it in this context.  Avoiding obligating a joint sponsor when not absolutely necessary would be my priority.  YMMV