spousal support

[SarahandJim 0]

I am the USC. If things don't work between us and if we divorce, will I be obligated to pay 125% above poverty level support for him? Or, will I only be obligated to pay back means tested public benefits?

[*JG* 2]

I believe you would go through a court and figure out a reasonable alimony.

It would be cruel and unusual punishment to have to pay 125% above the poverty level. However, if you were on the more wealthy side, I suppose that amount is certainly possible.

[tito 1]

As I understand, the support by way of the affidavit that requires you to pay 125% of the base poverty level involves a situation where the immigrant doesn't make any money and invokes public support and becomes a charge on society. Not that the sponsor has to pay 125% ABOVE the poverty level...it's 125% OF the DHS poverty level. The entity providing the enumerated public services (and it's not all or everything, like welfare, which is separate and not reimburseable by the sponsor) can seek reimbursement from the sponsor up to that amount (medical bills, for example, in the case of emergency services...). But, if the immigrant makes the minimum amount and is not, basically, on the street, homeless and without any money, then there is no liability from the affidavit of support standpoint, anyway, for such payments.

My understanding is that the sponsor simply guarantees that the immigrant beneficiary will not be a public charge, and the guarantee is to ensure that funds are available to preserve minimum poverty levels for the beneficiary. By no means is it a blank check for an immigrant to seek support (unless, of course, the immigrant has no job, and no earning potential).

In the context of family law and dissolution proceedings, however, posters here have mentioned that there are cases where judge's look at the affidavit of support and make it mean that, at a minimum, the sponsor should pay that amount regardless of the status of the immigrant (which I believe was not the intention of the affidavit of support at all).

The argument for the USC is that the affidavit simply ensures that the beneficiary isn't impoverished, and if they make or can make, say, $1,200 per month gross, there is no additional obligation on the part of the USC. What a family law court will do is another issue.

Edited January 30, 2008 by tito

[diadromous mermaid 36]

As I understand, the support by way of the affidavit that requires you to pay 125% of the base poverty level involves a situation where the immigrant doesn't make any money and invokes public support and becomes a charge on society. Not that the sponsor has to pay 125% ABOVE the poverty level...it's 125% OF the DHS poverty level. The entity providing the enumerated public services (and it's not all or everything, like welfare, which is separate and not reimburseable by the sponsor) can seek reimbursement from the sponsor up to that amount (medical bills, for example, in the case of emergency services...). But, if the immigrant makes the minimum amount and is not, basically, on the street, homeless and without any money, then there is no liability from the affidavit of support standpoint, anyway, for such payments.

My understanding is that the sponsor simply guarantees that the immigrant beneficiary will not be a public charge, and the guarantee is to ensure that funds are available to preserve minimum poverty levels for the beneficiary. By no means is it a blank check for an immigrant to seek support (unless, of course, the immigrant has no job, and no earning potential).

In the context of family law and dissolution proceedings, however, posters here have mentioned that there are cases where judge's look at the affidavit of support and make it mean that, at a minimum, the sponsor should pay that amount regardless of the status of the immigrant (which I believe was not the intention of the affidavit of support at all).

The argument for the USC is that the affidavit simply ensures that the beneficiary isn't impoverished, and if they make or can make, say, $1,200 per month gross, there is no additional obligation on the part of the USC. What a family law court will do is another issue.

Actually, in the cases I've encountered where an alien has used the extant contract between the petitioner and the US government, by way of the Affidavit of Support, to secure 125% of the poverty guideline figure, it was in lieu of seeking an award of spousal support from a family court. What is more important, is that in one particular case from Indiana, Stump v Stump, the court enforced the USC's obligation to maintain the alien at a minimum of 125% of the PG figure, and did not require that the alien to seek work. It found that the contract that the USC had signed made no mention of a requirement of the alien to mitigate.

[Jasman0717 8]

With no timeline to see where you are in the process I would have to say that if you are asking the question the maybe you should stop what you are doing and evaluate your situation. If you aren't sure now what will it be like in a month or a year

[tito 1]

"no mention of a requirement of the alien to mitigate."

That's lousy. But as I read the regulations and commentary concerning the Affidavit of Support, once the immigrant can sustain 125% of the minimum poverty standards, the USC is no longer on the hook. It's not as if the immigrant can go out, get a job making $1,500 a month, for example, and then come after the USC for another $1,200 (or whatever the guideline requires). Plus...as I read the statute, the obligation is for reimbursement to the State for certain services that are provided to the immigrant...it's not like the USC has to write a check every month to the immigrant. If the immigrant seeks certain assistance, cannot pay for the assistance, and makes, say, $895 per month, the obligation on the part of the USC is to make up the difference...in this case, $205 (assuming 125% of the minimum federal poverty standard is $1,200 per month).

[john_and_marlene 162]

But as I read the regulations and commentary concerning the Affidavit of Support, once the immigrant can sustain 125% of the minimum poverty standards, the USC is no longer on the hook.

The earning level of the immigrant is not a condition that terminates the I-864 support requirement. What regulation/commentary gives you that impression?

[Kez/JWolf 6]

"no mention of a requirement of the alien to mitigate."

That's lousy. But as I read the regulations and commentary concerning the Affidavit of Support, once the immigrant can sustain 125% of the minimum poverty standards, the USC is no longer on the hook.

The only way that the USC is "off the Hook" when it come to the Affidavit of Support is:-

1 The immigrant leave the USA permanently

2 The immigrant acquires 40 credits (10 years of Work)

3 The immigrant becomes a US Citizen

4 The immigrant dies

5 The USC dies...

How much the immigrant earns has no bearing on the Affidavit of Support.....

Kez

[tito 1]

If the immigrant earns what is the equivalent of 125% of the base poverty level, then what more is there for the sponsor to pay? The affidavit of support requires the sponsor to ensure that the immigrant has that much under their belt to pay for social services. I'll grab the citation for the regulations and commentary and post it. I think I did, though, once before, but I'll go check it out.

The affidavit of support is to ensure that the immigrant does not become a public charge, and that someone will stand in financially for the immigrant if they are destitute, basically. There is no requirement that, even if the immigrant is making the money, the sponsor still has to pay. Indeed, this requirement to maintain the minimum standards does last 10 years, and if the immigrant goes below the poverty level, the sponsor is responsible. But if the immigrant makes $1,200 a month, there's nothing further for the sponsor (at least under the regulations...unless a court might award something like that in dissolution proceedings...but that's not part of the statute)

[tito 1]

"What regulation/commentary gives you that impression?"

The earning level of the immigrant does not terminate the affidavit of support...that continues. However, if the immigrant makes the bare minimum, the exposure on the part of the sponsor is nil. The support is ONLY required if the immigrant utilizes certain social services and isn't making the minimum. And...the obligation is one on the part of the sponsor to reimburse the agencies offering the social services, not one to cut a check to the immigrant every month.

I referenced a citation in another thread that relates to commentary concerning affidavits of support. The foregoing is my reading and interpretation of the statutes. Maybe there is something else I am missing, but the affidavit of support is not an agreement between the immigrant and the sponsor such that the sponsor is required to pay the immigrant a set sum every month; rather, it's an agreement on the part of the sponsor to pay for certain governmental social service in the event the immigrant dips below certain defined income requirements as defined by minimum poverty level.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

"no mention of a requirement of the alien to mitigate."

That's lousy. But as I read the regulations and commentary concerning the Affidavit of Support, once the immigrant can sustain 125% of the minimum poverty standards, the USC is no longer on the hook. It's not as if the immigrant can go out, get a job making $1,500 a month, for example, and then come after the USC for another $1,200 (or whatever the guideline requires). Plus...as I read the statute, the obligation is for reimbursement to the State for certain services that are provided to the immigrant...it's not like the USC has to write a check every month to the immigrant. If the immigrant seeks certain assistance, cannot pay for the assistance, and makes, say, $895 per month, the obligation on the part of the USC is to make up the difference...in this case, $205 (assuming 125% of the minimum federal poverty standard is $1,200 per month).

tito,

http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/cases/2005,1107-stump1.pdf

[chispas 0]

These examples are enough to give anyone a heart attack.

[*JG* 2]

Does he have a job?

[chispas 0]

Does he have a job?

Yes, but he is on disability and in the hospital.

[tito 1]

I'd appeal that ruling. The Court read way too much into the meaning, and imposed obligations that simply do not exist. The way I read the statute and the agreement is that the sponsor ensures that the immigrant is not and will not become a public charge - it is certainly not (the case notwithstanding) a requirement that the sponsor shell out the $1,200 (or whatever the amount happens to be that equates to 125% of the poverty level) no matter what as support for the immigrant. The decision is plain wrong and ill-founded. Kudos to the attorney who argued for the immigrant! In the profession, that's a magician...making something out of nothing.