221g but lacking clarity on guidelines (joint sponsor doesn't qualify because retired?)

[triznite 0]

This morning my wife had her CR1 interview in Manila and she was told specifically by interviewing officer that:

 

Petitioner needs to have enough financially to support

Joint sponsor not acceptable because they are retired

 

Here is a quick overview of case details

 

30 year old petitioner currently unemployed but has individual brokerage account valued at $85,000 at time of interview

71 year old father as joint sponsor and 68 year old mother as household member of father, current income (going by their combined social security benefits as well as pension) of $64,000, which is decently above the minimum needed for household of 3.

 

My wife then was explained by a separate person before leaving about the 221G and was told the proof of domicile is about letter of intention to work and support wife. I am somewhat concerned that there is a disconnect on the specific reasoning from the interviewing officer and how that other person explained the letter to my wife. My wife felt stonewalled at the interview as she tried to show financial documents. The interviewing officer even asked who these two names were (implying that they didn't go over the overall evidence and joint sponsors i864 and i864a?).

 

From what I understood learning about this process, the petitioner being unemployed is not a problem as long as they have a joint sponsor and or assets that meet requirements. And I also had the understanding that social security and being retired for the joint sponsor is not a problem. 

 

I had sideloaded to ceac a lot of evidence a week before with updated statements,and my wife had it all ready for the officer to look in person as well. They have petitioner brokerage full statement from a year ago, 6 months ago, and then the latest month as well as current balance letter a week before interview date. Current social security benefits letter were uploaded for the joint sponsor parents of the petitioner. I also had included proof of domicile (as petitioner has been in manila  for almost a year now on temporary stay visiting wife and supporting her through process while waiting) with a detailed letter of intention for myself as well as my parents that is notarized that they are close with their son and allow petitioner and the beneficiary to live with them at their primary owned home as well as the secondary owned home if desired. They have petitioner valid state ID, and local bank account statement. They also have joint sponsor birth certificates and proof of domicile. Also two pdfs with extensive relationship evidence showing family pictures and the extended stay.

 

I have considered contacting the embassy using this page: https://ph.usembassy.gov/contact-us-visas/ in an attempt to clarify my case situation as my opinion is that the officer didn't really consider the totality of the situation as well as closely look at the documents and perhaps going by incorrect guidelines unless I am entirely mistaken on the retirement thing being a new problem for the joint sponsor. And I would also add that I believe petitioner asset amount is very close to the needed three times amount of minimum. At the very least it's close and it's not like the petitioner has nothing or plans to live in a big city.

 

Check out the 221g itself and give comments to provide insight. Is it possible to have a second look at this from a different officer who would hopefully go over the full evidence more closely? Do people view this also as the only option is that the petition needs to work immediately? Obviously if they toss aside the joint sponsor then it is understandable that even with that amount of assets it's not a particularly large amount over the guideline amount.. though it's obviously better than an unemployed petitioner who has close to nothing as well as not a close relationship to her parents and no reliable home. I would have thought the totality of the situation would have been enough here compared to plenty of other cases.

 

Thanks all.

 

[pushbrk 14,273]

The notice is pretty clear about what they want.  Your finances meet the minimums, but that is no guarantee.  Apparently, you've been living in the Philippines with your wife for some time.   You left that out of your case description, but both that, and your parents being retired, are highly relevant both to the pubic charge question, and for a Consular Officer to understand your plan to relocate and be able to support your wife, including paying for insurance or medical bills.

 

So, what IS your plan?  If you don't have one, consider going home and going to work.  Tell them that, and once you are back and working, submit a new affidavit of support.

 

[triznite 0]

Hi pushbrk, thanks for the reply and I appreciate your posts on this forum that helped me learn things about the process.

 

I agree the 221g itself is clear.

 

Though what was confusing was the officer claiming to my wife that the joint sponsor parents being retired is a problem as well as the 221g requesting proof of domicile despite having clearly already uploaded a pdf showing petitioner domicile evidence including letters of intent from all parties. Frankly I'm not sure the officer even looked at it. My wife was offering the physical proof to look, but the officer wasn't having it.

 

Would using that contact link help? I think another consular officer looking at my case or at least double checking what is uploaded already could help. Maybe I'm wrong and they've cracked down on things recently.

[pushbrk 14,273]

30 minutes ago, triznite said:

Hi pushbrk, thanks for the reply and I appreciate your posts on this forum that helped me learn things about the process.

 

I agree the 221g itself is clear.

 

Though what was confusing was the officer claiming to my wife that the joint sponsor parents being retired is a problem as well as the 221g requesting proof of domicile despite having clearly already uploaded a pdf showing petitioner domicile evidence including letters of intent from all parties. Frankly I'm not sure the officer even looked at it. My wife was offering the physical proof to look, but the officer wasn't having it.

 

Would using that contact link help? I think another consular officer looking at my case or at least double checking what is uploaded already could help. Maybe I'm wrong and they've cracked down on things recently.

They've cracked down on things recently.  You're going to need a better plan, and probably should return home and to work before attempting to proceed further.  Both your own and your parents' finances are marginal.  That won't cut it under the current policies.  A bona fide job offer with a specific start date, might work but I wouldn't count on it.

Edited 2 hours ago by pushbrk

[Lemonslice 5,402]

33 minutes ago, triznite said:

Hi pushbrk, thanks for the reply and I appreciate your posts on this forum that helped me learn things about the process.

 

I agree the 221g itself is clear.

 

Though what was confusing was the officer claiming to my wife that the joint sponsor parents being retired is a problem as well as the 221g requesting proof of domicile despite having clearly already uploaded a pdf showing petitioner domicile evidence including letters of intent from all parties. Frankly I'm not sure the officer even looked at it. My wife was offering the physical proof to look, but the officer wasn't having it.

 

Would using that contact link help? I think another consular officer looking at my case or at least double checking what is uploaded already could help. Maybe I'm wrong and they've cracked down on things recently.

Take a step back, forget about immigration, how are you going to support yourself and your wife?  Investments are nice, but they won't generate enough income to pay for your living expenses.  $85K * 20% (very very generous annual return to estimate), is only $17K (city living or not, that's not a comfortable income in 2026).

 

If you want to contact them, do so after you have returned to the US and found a job with health insurance.  That would satisfy all of the checked marks on the 221g. 

 

In other words, follow what@pushbrk replied.